Att 8 - Final Environmental Impact Report — San Mateo City Council, March 18, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

STRIVE SAN MATEO
General Plan 2040 and
Climate Plan Update Final EIR
SCH: 2022010160 | January 18, 2024

ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE placeworks.com
Prepared By: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
In Association with:

ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Forget Me Not History
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

STRIVE SAN MATEO
General Plan 2040 and
Climate Plan Update Final EIR
SCH: 2022010160 | January 18, 2024

PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Report Organization ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project ............................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 1-2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Proposed Project ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 EIR Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 2-2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ...................................................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 3-5 Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 3-6 Chapter 4.5 Energy ................................................................................................................ 3-8 Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 3-9 Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 3-12 Chapter 4.8 Hazards And Hazardous Materials ................................................................ 3-12 Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................... 3-14 Chapter 4.10 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................. 3-17 Chapter 4.11 Noise ................................................................................................................. 3-19 Chapter 4.12 Parks And Recreation ..................................................................................... 3-21 Chapter 4.13 Population And Housing ................................................................................ 3-21 Chapter 4.14 Public Services ................................................................................................. 3-23 Chapter 4.15 Transportation ................................................................................................. 3-24 Chapter 4.17 Utilities and Service System ............................................................................ 3-31 Chapter 4.18 Wildfire .............................................................................................................. 3-33 Chapter 5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 3-38 Chapter 6 CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions .................................................... 3-41 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 3-41 LIST OF COMMENTERS ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Governmental Agencies .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Non-Governmental Organizations and Private Companies ................................... 4-1

4.3 Members of the Public .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.4 Public Hearing Oral Comments ................................................................................... 4-2 STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii JANUARY 2024
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Master Responses .......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Comments and Responses ........................................................................................... 5-7

APPENDICES
Appendix B: REVISED Projects Included in Buildout Projections Appendix G: Comments Received on the Draft EIR
Appendix H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendices A, C, D, E, and F are located within the Draft EIR

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 1-3 Table 4.11-8 Proposed General Plan Noise-Sensitive Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ....... 3-20 Table 5-1 Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIR ................................................ 5-8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.6-5 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation ........................................................... 3-10 Figure 4.9-2 Potential Flood Hazards .............................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 4.15-1 Existing Street Classification ........................................................................................ 3-27 Figure 4.18-5 Potential Evacuation Routes ...................................................................................... 3-34

PLACEWORKS 1-1
Executive Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and implementing the proposed Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040 or proposed General Plan) and proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) update, hereinafter referred to together as “proposed project.” This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) to determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment. This executive summary includes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR and presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified. The remainder of this Final EIR contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft EIR, where warranted, along with a response to comments matrix and a list of commenters. For a complete description of the proposed project, see Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. For a complete discussion of alternatives to the proposed project, see Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.

1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Final EIR is organized into the following chapters:
 Chapter 1: Executive Summary. Summarizes environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the project, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance of environmental impacts before and after mitigation. Underline text in Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures, represents language that has been added to the impacts and mitigation measures in the EIR; text in strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.  Chapter 2: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the use and organization of this Final EIR.  Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR. Contains corrections to the text and graphics of the Draft EIR.

Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text in strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.
 Chapter 4: List of Commenters. Lists the names of agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR.
 Chapter 5: Comments and Responses. Presents comments received from agencies and the public on the Draft EIR alongside responses to each comment. Also contains “master responses” that provide comprehensive responses to key issues raised by several comments.  Appendix: The appendix for this Final EIR contains the following:
 Appendix B: REVISED Projects Included in Buildout Projections  Appendix G: Comments Received on the Draft EIR
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-2 JANUARY 2024
 Appendix H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendices A, C, D, E, and F are located within the Draft EIR and have not been revised. All appendices are available on the City’s webpage for the proposed project.

The Draft EIR is available online and incorporated here by reference. It constitutes part of the Final EIR.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes replacing the City’s existing General Plan 2030, which has a buildout horizon to 2030, with an updated General Plan 2040. The proposed project would build off the existing General Plan 2030 to provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the horizon year of 2040. The proposed project would also update the buildout projections used in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) to be consistent with the updated General Plan 2040.

Development within the city would largely be focused within the ten General Plan Land Use Study Areas.

The Study Areas include areas near transit; areas where current buildings are aging, vacant, or not maintained; or areas where property owners have expressed interest in considering redevelopment of the property. Refer to Figure 3-3, Study Area Boundaries, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for the proposed project’s ten General Plan Land Use Study Areas.

The proposed CAP update does not include any substantive updates to the strategies in the existing CAP .

1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As determined in the Draft EIR, the proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number of areas. Pursuant to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. As shown in Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures, all significant impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, even with adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. As described in detail in Chapter 6, CEQA-Mandated Sections, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would have no significant impact on agricultural or mineral resources, due to existing conditions in the project area. Accordingly, these topics were not analyzed further in the Draft EIR.

Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this Draft EIR and presents a summary of the significant impacts and mitigation measures identified. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18. The table is arranged in four columns: (1) significant environmental impacts, (2) significance without mitigation, (3) mitigation measures, and (4) significance with mitigation. For a complete description of the proposed project’s potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable

PLACEWORKS 1-3
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation

AESTHETICS
No significant impacts

AIR QUALITY
AQ-2: Construction of development projects that
could occur from implementation of the proposed
project would generate emissions that would exceed
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
regional significance thresholds and cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

S 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, including; 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.
 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.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable

1-4 JANUARY 2024
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
 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: Operation of development projects under the
proposed project would generate operational
emissions that would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s regional significance
thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NO
X).

S 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-rel ated 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 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.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable

PLACEWORKS 1-5
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
 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: Construction emissions associated with
development under the proposed project could
expose air quality-sensitive receptors to substantial
toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s project-
level and cumulative significance thresholds.

S 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 shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (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 (TBACTs) 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.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable

1-6 JANUARY 2024
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
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: Implementation of the proposed project
would generate a substantial increase in emissions
that exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance thresholds and would
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations and health risk in the San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin.

S AQ-6: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4. SU

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts

CULTURAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts
ENERGY
No significant impacts

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No significant impacts

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
No significant impacts

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No significant impacts

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No significant impacts

LAND USE AND PLANNING
No significant impacts
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable

PLACEWORKS 1-7
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
NOISE
NOISE-1: Buildout under the proposed project is
anticipated to result in unacceptable traffic noise
with 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.

S None available. SU
NOISE-64: Buildout under the proposed project is
anticipated to result in unacceptable cumulative
traffic noise within the EIR Study Area.

S None available. SU

PARKS AND RECREATION
No significant impacts

POPULATION AND HOUSING
No significant impacts

PUBLIC SERVICES
No significant impacts

TRANSPORTATION
No significant impacts

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No significant impacts

WILDFIRE
WILD-2: Development under the proposed project
would increase population, buildings, and
infrastructure in wildfire-prone areas, thereby
exacerbating wildfire risks.

S None available. SU
WILD-5: Potential development under the proposed
project could, in combination with other surrounding
and future projects in the State Responsibility Areas,
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or Wildland
S None available. SU
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable

1-8 JANUARY 2024
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
Urban Interface, result in cumulative impacts
associated with the exposure of project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope,
prevailing winds, or other factors.

PLACEWORKS 2-1
Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15378[a], the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040 or proposed General Plan) and proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) update are considered a “project” subject to environmental review as its implementation is “an action [undertaken by a public agency] which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The assessment in this Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is intended to inform the City’s decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the public-at-large of the nature of the proposed project and its effect on the environment.

2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes replacing the City’s existing General Plan 2030, which has a buildout horizon to 2030, with an updated General Plan 2040. The proposed project would build off the existing General Plan 2030 to provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the horizon year of 2040. The proposed project would also update the buildout projections used in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) to be consistent with the updated General Plan 2040.

Development within the city would largely be focused within the ten General Plan Land Use Study Areas.

The proposed CAP update does not include any substantive updates to the strategies in the existing CAP .

2.2 EIR SCOPE
This Final EIR identifies and analyzes program specific potential impacts of the project which were determined in the Draft EIR. The analysis of the Draft EIR discloses the specific short-term impacts (construction) and long-term impacts (operation) that would occur as a result of project approval and implementation.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

INTRODUCTION
2-2 JANUARY 2024

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

2.3.1 DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(d)1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063,2 the City determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that an EIR would be required. In compliance with CEQA Section 21080.4, the City circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the for the City of San Mateo General Plan Update to interested agencies and persons on January 12, 2022 for a 30-day review period. The scoping period for this Draft EIR was between January 12 and February 11, 2022, during which, interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the proposed project. The scope of the Draft EIR was established by the City of San Mateo through the EIR scoping process and includes an analysis of both the proposed project’s impacts and cumulative impacts in the following issue areas:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
 CEQA-Mandated Assessment Conclusions:
 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
 Significant and Irreversible Changes
 Growth Inducement
The Draft EIR was available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting on August 11, 2023, and ending on September 25, 2023. During the comment period, the public was invited to submit written comments on the Draft EIR via mail or e- mail to the City of San Mateo Community Development Department.

2.3.2 FINAL EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR, the City reviewed all comments received and prepared written responses for each comment. These letters are included in Appendix G, Comments Received on the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. This Final EIR includes written responses for each comment received during the public review period. This Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses to those comments, and describes any changes to the Draft EIR that have resulted from the comments received.

1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000 to 21177. 2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 to 15387.

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

CITY OF SAN MATE O

INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 2-3
Upon recommendations by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, the City Council will review the Final EIR as the decision-making body for the proposed project. A City Council public hearing will be scheduled to concurrently consider certification of the Final EIR and a decision on the project. If the City Council determines that the project may be approved, the City Council will adopt and incorporate into the project all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and may also require changes to the proposed project.

In some cases, the City Council may find that certain mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City to implement, or that there are no feasible mitigation measures for a given significant impact. In that case, the City Council would have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that determines that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable, significant effects on the environment.

The City Council may also find that the project does not satisfy the required findings for approval and decide to reject the project on that basis. Community input is encouraged at all Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.

2.3.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that the lead agency adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made mitigation findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081. Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project will be completed and available to the public prior to certification of this EIR.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

INTRODUCTION
2-4 JANUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.

PLACEWORKS 3-1
Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter presents changes to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that resulted from preparation of responses to comments, or from staff-directed changes, including corrections and clarifications. In each case, the page and location on the page in the Draft EIR is presented, followed by the text or graphic revision. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR. The revisions in this chapter do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR because they do not constitute “significant new information” under Section 15088.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. All changes to Draft EIR Table 1- 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, are included in Chapter 1, Executive Summary, of this Final EIR.

CHAPTER 4.1 AESTHETICS
The following General Plan policies and action referenced in impact discussion AES-1 on pages 4.1-12 to 4.1-14 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy CD 1.3: Scenic Corridors. Require new development adjacent to designated scenic corridors within San Mateo County’s General Plan to protect and enhance the visual character of these corridors to the extent feasible.
 Policy CD 6.107.6: Nighttime Lighting. Require nighttime lighting to be energy efficient, be and designed to minimize light pollution and light spillage to on adjacent properties, while protecting public safety.
 Action CD 7.67: Objective Design Standards. Develop and adopt Implement the City’s objective design standards to ensure that clearly outline the City’s design expectations for new single- family and multifamily and mixed-use projects with a residential component meet required standards and streamline the development review process.

The following General Plan policy and action referenced in impact discussion AES-3 on pages 4.1-15 to

4.1-16 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy CD 8.3: Respect Existing Scale and Rhythm. Encourage nNew mixed-use and commercial development should have context sensitive design that incorporates architectural styles and elements that relate to respect the scale and design rhythm of surrounding buildings, including by providing breaks in the building face at spacings common to buildings in the area and by stepping back upper floors.
 Action CD 8.6: Objective Design Standards. Develop and adopt objective design standards for new mixed-use and commercial development to provide a clear understanding of the City’s expectation for new project design, including context appropriate architectural styles and pedestrian-friendly design.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-2 JANUARY 2024
The following General Plan policy referenced in impact discussion AES-4 on pages 4.1-16 to 4.1-18 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Policy CD 6.107.6: Nighttime Lighting. Require nighttime lighting to be energy efficient, be and designed to minimize light pollution and light spillage to on adjacent properties, while protecting public safety.

CHAPTER 4.2 AIR QUALITY
The following General Plan goal and policies referenced in Section 4.2-3, Impact Discussion, under the “Methodology” subheading on pages 4.2-35 to 4.2-38 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Goal COS-4: Goals, policies, and actions focused on equity priority communities can be found throughout the General Plan. The Land Use Element also includes goals and policies on environmental justice under Goal LU-8. All San Mateo residents should have the ability to breathe safe, clean air.
 Policy COS 4.3: BAAQMD Planning for Healthy Places. Require new development to adhere to BAAQMD’s Planning for Healthy Places guidance when warranted by local conditions warrant.  Policy COS 4.9: Air Pollution Exposure. For new development that is located within 1,000 feet from US Highway 101 and State Route 92, require installation of enhanced ventilation systems and other strategies to protect people from respiratory, heart, and other health effects associated with breathing polluted air in both indoor and outdoor spaces.

The following General Plan actions referenced in impact discussion AQ-1 on pages 4.2-38 to 4.2-53 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Action LU 8.3: Health Disparities. Coordinate with the San Mateo County Public Health Department to promote healthier communities through education, prevention, intervention programs, and other activities that address the health disparities and inequities that exist in San Mateo.
 Action LU 8.4: City Investment. Use funds collected by from the park impact fee and other sources to invest in programs and public improvements that connect residents with opportunities to increase their physical activity and improve their physical and mental health, especially in equity priority communities with higher risk of negative public health outcomes.

Identify new funding sources for programs and public improvements, if needed.  Action LU 8.8: Streetscape and Safety Improvements. Work with residents in equity priority communities to identify sidewalk, lighting, landscaping, and roadway improvements needed to improve routes to parks, schools, recreation facilities, and other destinations within the community. Prioritize investments to that address health disparities in equity priority communities in the annual Capital Improvement Program.
 Action LU 8.12: Neighborhood Beautification. Support and promote neighborhood clean-up and beautification initiatives in equity priority communities, including street tree planting and maintenance, through in partnerships with neighborhood organizations.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-3
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 on page 4.2-55, continuing onto page 4.2-56, of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prio r 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, including; 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.  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.

The following General Plan policy and actions referenced in impact discussion AQ-3 on pages 4.2-56 to

4.2-63 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy C 1.1: Sustainable Transportation. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation by increasing mode share options for sustainable travel modes, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-4 JANUARY 2024
 Action C 1.1415: Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan. Coordinate with interagency partners and community stakeholders to seek funding opportunities to design, construct, and build the priority projects identified in the Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan to improve access to and from the Caltrain Stations.  Action C 2.7: New Development Shuttle Services. Encourage new developments to provide shuttle services and shuttle partnerships as an option to fulfill TDM requirements. Shuttles should serve activity centers, such as the College of San Mateo, Caltrain stations, dDowntown, the Hillsdale Shopping Center, or other areas and should accommodate the needs and schedules of all riders, including service workers.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3
on page 4.2-61 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: P rior 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-re lated 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 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.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4 on page 4.2-67 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-5
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 shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (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.

CHAPTER 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following General Plan policies referenced in impact discussion BIO-1 on pages 4.3-20 to 4.3-23 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy COS 1.2: Interjurisdictional Coordination. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and regional, State, and federal agencies to protect critical wildlife habitat, including by participating in comprehensive habitat management programs.
 Policy COS 1.4: Avoidance of Nesting Birds. Disturbance of active Nnative bird nests in active use should shall be avoided in compliance with when required by State and federal regulations.

For new development sites where nesting native birds may be present, vegetation clearing and construction should must be initiated outside the bird nesting season (March 1 through August 31) or preconstruction surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist in advance of any disturbance. If active nests are encountered, appropriate buffer zones should shall be established based on recommendations by the qualified biologist and remain in place until any young birds have successfully left the nest.
 Policy COS 1.5: Surveys for Sensitive Natural Communities. Require that sites with suitable natural habitat, including creek corridors through urbanized areas, be surveyed for the presence or absence of sensitive natural communities prior to development approval. Such surveys should shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and occur prior to development-related vegetation removal or other habitat modifications.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-6 JANUARY 2024
 Policy COS 1.6: Surveys for Regulated Waters. Require that sites with suitable natural habitat, including creek corridors through urbanized areas, be surveyed for the presence or absence of regulated waters prior to development approval. Such surveys should shall be conducted by a qualified wetland specialist and occur prior to development-related vegetation removal or other habitat modifications.
 Policy COS 3.1: Aesthetic and Habitat Values – Public Creeks. Preserve and enhance the aesthetic and habitat values of creeks, such as San Mateo, Laurel, and Beresford Creeks, and other City-owned channels in all activities affecting these creeks, including revegetation, rewilding, erosion control, and adequate setbacks for structures.

CHAPTER 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The section under the “Historic Resources” subheading on pages 4.4-8 to 4.4-9 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The history of San Mateo is represented in the almost 200 recognized historic resources and two historic dis
tricts, as identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey.13 Approximately 37 of these structures are individually eligible for the National Register. They range from historic buildings in the downtown area to single-family homes from the late nineteenth century. Within the EIR Study Area, six historic resources are listed in the National Register and six historic resources are listed in the California Register, as shown in Table 4.4-1, Federal- and State-Recognized Historic Resources. In addition, the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House—which includes the main residence, two additional buildings, three structures, and three gardens—was listed as a historic property in the National Register in late 2023 and was subsequently also listed on the California Register.14
TABLE 4.4-1 FEDERAL- AND STATE-RECOGNIZED HISTORIC RESOURCES Historic Resource Location
National Register of
Historic Places
California Register of
Historic Resources
Baywood Elementary School (1939) 600 Alameda de las Pulgas X Ernest Coxhead House 37 East Santa Inez Avenue X X
Eugene De Sabla J. Jr. Teahouse and Tea
Garden 70 De Sabla Road X X
Hotel St. Matthew 215-229 Second Avenue X X
National Bank of San Mateo 164 South B Street X X
US Post Main Office – San Mateo 210 South Ellsworth Street X X Vollers House 353 North Claremont Street X
Yoshiko Yamanouchi House 1007 East 5th Avenue X X
Source: National Park Service, 2023, National Register of Historic Places, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm; California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation, 2023, California Historical Resources, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=41.

The 1989 Historic Building Survey also identified two National Register-eligible historic districts, the Downtown Historic District and the Glazenwood Historic District.1415 Contributing resources in the Downtown Historic District are primarily concentrated along B Street and Third Avenue and were largely STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-7
constructed from the late nineteenth century to the late 1930s. The Glazenwood Historic District is a residential subdivision that includes a distinctive concentration of 1920s Spanish Colonial Revival homes.

The 1989 Historic Building Survey undertook preliminary documentation of several neighborhoods located on the east side of El Camino Real. These neighborhoods were subject to an intensive survey and include Central, East San Mateo, Hayward Park, San Mateo Heights, and North Central. Other than the Glazenwood Historic District, which is located within the Hayward Park neighborhood, the 1989 Historic Building Survey did not formally evaluate these neighborhoods as historic districts. The neighborhoods with high concentrations of older homes on the west side of El Camino Real, including Aragon, Baywood, Baywood Knolls, and San Mateo Park, were subject to a visual (windshield) survey. The 1989 Historic Building Survey recommended that future historic resources surveys be undertaken to comprehensively document and evaluate these neighborhoods as historic districts.

In October 2023, a privately prepared National Register nomination form for the Baywood Historic District was submitted to the California OHP . The draft nomination form states that the potential district includes 350 contributing buildings and six structures. The contributing buildings are single-family residences constructed from 1927 to 1949, primarily in revival styles of the 1920s and 1930s, including Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, Colonial Revival, and Mediterranean Revival. The draft nomination form is currently under review by the California OHP .16 The remaining individual properties listed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey as eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register or as locally significant are considered potential historic resources but are not formally listed or landmarked. In subsequent decades, many other properties in San Mateo have been determined to be eligible historic resources through the development of Historic Resource Evaluations as part of the environmental review process. Documentation on these properties is maintained by the city.
14 Denise Bradley and Ward Hill, Yoshiko Yamanouchi House National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, 1007 East 5th Avenue, San Mateo, California, prepared by Denise Bradley Cultural Landscapes, November 2022, Revised June 2023; California Office of Historic Preservation, October 30, 2023, California State Historical Resources Commission to Consider 14 Properties for Action at November 3 Meeting, https://www.parks.ca.gov/NewsRelease/1223, accessed October 31, 2023; California Office of Historic Preservation, 2023 Actions Taken, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=31364. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, January 4, 2024, letter to Mayor Amourence Lee Re:

Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 1415 San Mateo County Historical Association, September 1989, City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report. 16 Page & Turnbull, 2023, Draft Baywood Historic District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, San Mateo, California, October 16, 2023.

The following General Plan policies and action referenced in impact discussion CULT-1 on pages 4.4-10 to 4.4-13 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy CD 5.1: Comprehensive Approach to Historic Preservation. Implement a comprehensive approach to historic preservation based on community input and best practices from State and federal agencies, to find an appropriate balance between preservation with other important priorities, such as affordable housing production and supporting local businesses.  Policy CD 5.12: Historic Preservation. Actively Iidentify and preserve historic resources and concentrations of historic resources which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-8 JANUARY 2024
as feasible, when they meet national, State, or local criteria. Historic resources, includeing individual properties, districts, and sites to that maintain San Mateo’s sense of place and special identity, and to enrich our understanding of the city’s history and continuity with the past.  Policy CD 5.2: Historic Resources Preservation. Actively identify and preserve concentrations of historic resources, which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, when they meet national, State, or local criteria.
 Action CD 5.108: Historic Preservation Ordinance. Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to create a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts, establish review and permitting procedures for historic alterations, demolitions or relocations, be consistent with federal and State standards and guidelines, and align with the other goals and policies outlined in this Element.
 Action CD 5.89: Historic Resources Context Statements. Prepare a citywide historic context statement to guide future historic resource survey efforts to identify individually eligible resources and historic districts. If a neighborhood is identified as a historic district, prepare a more detailed historic context statement for that individual neighborhood.  Action CD 5.910: Historic Resources Survey. Establish and maintain an inventory of architecturally, culturally, and historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and districts.

Proactively maintain an up-to-date historic resources inventory by seeking funding opportunities to update the historic survey. Prepare neighborhood-specific historic context statements prior to updating the historic resources survey.
 Action CD 5.12: Historic Resources Design Standards. Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts. Use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as the basis for these objective design standards to ensure projects have a contextual relationship with land uses and patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; cultural and historic values; and the height, massing, design, and materials of historic resources.

CHAPTER 4.5 ENERGY
The following General Plan policies referenced in impact discussion ENE-1 on pages 4.5-19 to 4.4-27 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy C 1.1: Sustainable Transportation. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation by increasing mode share options for sustainable travel modes, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit.
 Policy C 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Create and maintain a safe, walkable environment in San Mateo to increase the number of pedestrians. Maintain an updated recommended pedestrian network for implementation. Encourage “superblock” or similar design in certain nodes of the city, such as the dDowntown, that allows vehicle access at the periphery and limits cut-through vehicles to create pedestrian-focused, car-light spaces.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-9
 Policy C 4.87: Interjurisdiction Coordination. Continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and regional partners in the development of connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities and regional trails, as identified in adopted City plans.
 Policy C 5.1: Increase Transit Ridership. Support SamTrans and Caltrain in their efforts to increase transit ridership and frequency of transit services.  Policy LU 3.78: Visitor Economy. Collaborate with other Peninsula cities and the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the continued development of the visitor economy of both the city and the region, including lodging, entertainment, cultural, recreation, retail, and local events; encourage uses that attract visitors. Incentivize through fee reduction and visitor perks, sustainable modes of travel to and from the city to reduce both the use of air travel and gas-powered vehicles.

CHAPTER 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The text under the “Liquefaction” subheading on page 4.6-10 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where moist, fine-gr ained, cohesionless sediment or fill materials are subjected to strong, seismically induced ground shaking. Under certain circumstances, the ground shaking can temporarily transform an otherwise solid material to a fluid state, which can result in the horizontal movement of soils on gentle slopes, called lateral spreading. Liquefaction is a serious hazard and may result in buildings that subside and suffer major structural damage. Liquefaction is most often triggered by seismic shaking, but it can also be caused by improper grading, landslides, or other factors.

In dry soils, seismic shaking may cause soil to consolidate rather than flow, a process known as densification. Liquefaction in the EIR Study Area ranges from very low in the hillsides of the city to very high in the marshland and tidal marshes on the eastern side of the EIR Study Area, as shown on Figure

4.6-4, Seismic Hazard Zones. Additionally, as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, CGS provides maps of Earthquake Required Zones of Investigation. As depicted in Figure 4.6-5, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, San Mateo contains liquefaction zones and earthquake-induced landslide zones.

Figure 4.6-5, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, as shown on the following page, is hereby added after page 4.6-11 of the Draft EIR.

The text under the “Liquefaction” subheading on page 4.6-12 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The northeastern portion of the EIR Study Area located along the San Francisco Bay is predominantly un
consolidated soils, which consist of soft, unconsolidated, water-saturated, silty clay with shell fragments. These low-lying areas that front the Bay are particularly susceptible to liquefaction. In the western portions of the EIR Study Area, the soils consist of colluvium and bedrock, which have a low susceptibility to liquefaction. As shown on Figure 4.6-4 and Figure 4.6-5, the majority of the liquefaction susceptibility areas in the EIR Study Area are in urbanized, low-lying areas near creeks or the waterfront.

Many of the open space areas and hillside neighborhoods are in low or very low liquefaction susceptibility areas.
www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs
California Geological Survey
Geologic Information and Publications
801 K Street, MS 14-34
Sacramento, CA 95814-3532 Half Moon Bay
Hunters
Point
Montara
Mountain
Palo
Alto
Redwood
Point
San
Francisco
South
San
Leandro
San
Mateo
Woodside
Contour Interval 25 Feet
Scale 1: 24,000

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
JOHN G. PARRISH, PHD., STATE GEOLOGIST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY- JOHN LAIRD, SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DAVID BUNN, DIRECTOR

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES AND SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
SAN MATEO 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE
Approximate
Declination, 2018
N

MAP EXPLANATION
Study area defined by USGS quadrangle boundaries using NAD 27, represented by the visible map extent. Data are maintained and distributed in California Albers (meters), NAD 83, [EPSG:3310] as shown by tics and coordinates.

Shaded topographic relief derived from USGS 10 meter NED, 2013.

T opographic base map from USGS 1956, photorevised, 1980.

Street data from US Census Bureau TIGER/Line, 2017.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For additional information on the zones of required investigation presented on this map, the data and methodology used to prepare them, and additional references consulted, please refer to the following:

References used to prepare Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones for the San Mateo Quadrangle can be found here:
http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/FER/EarlyMapReferences/San_Mateo_references.pdf For more information on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act please refer to:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/main.aspx Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Mateo 7.5-minute Quadrangle, San Mateo County, California.

California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 113. http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_113_San_Mateo.pdf For more information on the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act please refer to:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/SHMPpgminfo.aspx Click the link below to learn how to take greater advantage of the GeoPDF format of this map after downloading.
http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Docs/TerragoUserGuide.pdf 1 0 1 20.5 Miles
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000500 Feet 2,000 Meters1,00005001,000
1 0 1 20.5 Kilometers

SAN MATEO QUADRANGLE
California Geological Survey
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
San Mateo Quadrangle
This Map Shows Both Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones And Seismic Hazard Zones Issued For The San Mateo Quadrangle Map Preparation by: Kate Thomas, CGS
122°15'
122°15'
122°22'30"
122°22'30"
37°37'30" 37°37'30"
37°30' 37°30'
(SAN FRANCISCO
SOUTH)
(HUNTERS POINT) (SAN LEANDRO)(REDWOOD POINT)
(PALO ALTO)(WOODSIDE)
(HALF MOON BAY)
(MONTARA MOUNTAIN)

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
Delineated in compliance with Chapter 7.5,
Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code
(Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act)
Released: July 1, 1974

OFFICIAL MAP

STATE GEOLOGIST

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Delineated in compliance with Chapter 7.8,
Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code
(Seismic Hazards Mapping Act)
Released: January 11, 2018

OFFICIAL MAP

STATE GEOLOGIST
see CGS Special Publication 42, Earthquake Fault Zones, a Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Appendix C, and CGS Special Publication 118, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones in California .

For information regarding the scope and recommended methods to be used in conducting required site investigations refer to CGS Special Publication 42, and CGS Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. For a general description of the AP and Seismic Hazards Mapping acts, the zonation programs, and related information, please refer to the website at www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ .

This map shows the location of Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones and Seismic Haza
rd Zones, collectively referred to here as Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

The Geographic Information System (GIS) digital files of these regulatory zones released by the California Geological Survey (CGS) are the "Official Maps." GIS files are available at the CGS website http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ . These zones will assist cities and counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public from the effects of surface fault rupture and earthquake-triggered ground failure as required by the AP Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2621-2630) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6). For information regarding the general approach and recommended methods for preparing these zones,

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
Earthquake Fault Zones
Zone boundaries are delineated by straight-line segments; the boundaries define the zone encompassing active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep such that avoidance as described in Public Resources Code Section 2621.5(a) would be required.

C19061906
? ?
Active Fault Traces
Faults considered to have been active during Holocene time and to have potential for surface rupture: Solid Line in Black or Red where Accurately Located; Long Dash in Black or Solid Line in Purple where Approximately Located; Short Dash in Black or Solid Line in Orange where Inferred; Dotted Line in Black or Solid Line in Rose where Concealed; Query (?) indicates additional uncertainty.

Evidence of historic offset indicated by year of earthquake- associated event or C for displacement caused by fault creep.

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones
Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.

Liquefaction Zones
Areas where historical occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and ground water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.

OVERLAPPING EARTHQUAKE FAULT AND SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Note: Mitigation methods differ for each zone –
AP Act only allows avoidance; Seismic Hazard Mapping Act allows mitigation by engineering/geotechnical design as well as avoidance.

Overlap of Earthquake Fault Zone and Liquefaction Zone
Areas that are covered by both Earthquake Fault Zone and Liquefaction Zone.Overlap of Earthquake Fault Zone and Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zone Areas that are covered by both Earthquake Fault Zone and Earthquake- Induced Landslide Zone.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING FOR ZONES SHOWN ON THIS MAP
1) This map may not show all faults that have the potential for surface fault rupture, either within the Earthquake Fault Zones or outside their boundaries. Additionally, this map may not show all areas that have the potential for liquefaction, landsliding, strong earthquake ground shaking or other earthquake and geologic hazards. Also, a single earthquake capable of causing liquefaction or triggering landside failure will not uniformly affect the entire area zoned.
2) Boundaries of Earthquake Fault Zones, if included on this map, are based on interpreted Holocene-active fault traces.
3) The identification and location of these faults are based on the best available data. However, the quality of data used is varied. Traces have been depicted as accurately as possible at a map scale of 1:24,000. 4) Liquefaction zones may also contain areas susceptible to the effects of earthquake-induced landslides.

This situation typically exists at or near the toes of existing landslides, downslope from rockfall or debris flow source areas, or adjacent to steep stream banks.
5) Landslide zones on this map were determined, in part, by adapting methods first developed by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide hazard maps prepared by the USGS typically use experimental approaches to assess earthquake-induced and other types of landslide hazards. Although aspects of these new methodologies may be incorporated in future CGS seismic hazard zone maps, USGS maps should not be used as substitutes for these Official SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES maps.
6) USGS base map standards provide that 90 percent of cultural features be located within 40 feet (horizontal accuracy) at the scale of this map. The identification and location of liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslide zones are based on available data. However, the quality of data used is varied. The zone boundaries depicted have been drawn as accurately as possible at this scale. 7) Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for the geologic and geotechnical site investigations required under Chapters 7.5 and 7.8 of Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code. 8) Seismic Hazard Zones identified on this map may include developed land where delineated hazards have already been mitigated to city or county standards. Check with your local building/planning department for information regarding the location of such mitigated areas. 9) DISCLAIMER: The State of California and the Department of Conservation make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or any third party on account of or arising from the use of this map.

IMPORTANTSource: California Geological Survey, www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs. Shaded topographic relief derived from USGS 10 meter NED, 2013. Topographic base map from USGS 1956, photorevised, 1980. Street data from US Census Bureau TIGER/Line, 2017.

Figure 4.6-5
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO
www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs
California Geological Survey
Geologic Information and Publications
801 K Street, MS 14-34
Sacramento, CA 95814-3532 Half Moon Bay
Hunters
Point
Montara
Mountain
Palo
Alto
Redwood
Point
San
Francisco
South
San
Leandro
San
Mateo
Woodside
Contour Interval 25 Feet
Scale 1: 24,000

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
JOHN G. PARRISH, PHD., STATE GEOLOGIST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY- JOHN LAIRD, SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DAVID BUNN, DIRECTOR

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES AND SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
SAN MATEO 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE
Approximate
Declination, 2018
N

Shaded topographic relief derived from USGS 10 meter NED, 2013.

T opographic base map from USGS 1956, photorevised, 1980.

Street data from US Census Bureau TIGER/Line, 2017.

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
Delineated in compliance with Chapter 7.5,
Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code
(Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act)
Released: July 1, 1974

OFFICIAL MAP

STATE GEOLOGIST

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Delineated in compliance with Chapter 7.8,
Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code
(Seismic Hazards Mapping Act)
Released: January 11, 2018

OFFICIAL MAP

This map shows the location of Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones and Seismic Haza
rd Zones, collectively referred to here as Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

Evidence of historic offset indicated by year of earthquake- associated event or C for displacement caused by fault creep.

Overlap of Earthquake Fault Zone and Liquefaction Zone
Areas that are covered by both Earthquake Fault Zone and Liquefaction Zone.

Overlap of Earthquake Fault Zone and Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zone Areas that are covered by both Earthquake Fault Zone and Earthquake- Induced Landslide Zone.

IMPORTANT

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
0 Scale (Miles)
1 www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs
California Geological Survey
Geologic Information and Publications
801 K Street, MS 14-34
Sacramento, CA 95814-3532 Half Moon Bay
Hunters
Point
Montara
Mountain
Palo
Alto
Redwood
Point
San
Francisco
South
San
Leandro
San
Mateo
Woodside
Contour Interval 25 Feet
Scale 1: 24,000

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
JOHN G. PARRISH, PHD., STATE GEOLOGIST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY- JOHN LAIRD, SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DAVID BUNN, DIRECTOR

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES AND SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
SAN MATEO 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE
Approximate
Declination, 2018
N

Shaded topographic relief derived from USGS 10 meter NED, 2013.

T opographic base map from USGS 1956, photorevised, 1980.

Street data from US Census Bureau TIGER/Line, 2017.

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
Delineated in compliance with Chapter 7.5,
Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code
(Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act)
Released: July 1, 1974

OFFICIAL MAP

STATE GEOLOGIST

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Delineated in compliance with Chapter 7.8,
Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code
(Seismic Hazards Mapping Act)
Released: January 11, 2018

OFFICIAL MAP

This map shows the location of Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones and Seismic Haza
rd Zones, collectively referred to here as Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

C1906 1906
? ?
Active Fault Traces
Faults considered to have been active during Holocene time and to have potential for surface rupture: Solid Line in Black or Red where Accurately Located; Long Dash in Black or Solid Line in Purple where Approximately Located; Short Dash in Black or Solid Line in Orange where Inferred; Dotted Line in Black or Solid Line in Rose where Concealed; Query (?) indicates additional uncertainty.

Evidence of historic offset indicated by year of earthquake- associated event or C for displacement caused by fault creep.

IMPORTANT

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-11
The text under the “Liquefaction” subheading on page 4.6-12 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

As shown in Figure 4.6-4 and Figure 4.6-5, landslides have the potential to occur in the EIR Study Area, most notably on the steeper slopes that lie on the western edge of the EIR Study Area. In these areas, landslides are commonly associated with slopes underlain with Franciscan sheared rock (mélange) and pre-existing landslide deposits, which indicate unstable underlying materials.

The text under the “Liquefaction” subheading of impact discussion GEO-1 o n page 4.6-17 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The EIR Study Area contains a range of geological and soil profiles. Within the EIR Study Area, liqu
efaction susceptibility ranges from low in steeply sloped areas to moderate and very high in the marshland and tidal marshes on the eastern side of the EIR Study Area, as shown on Figure 4.6-4 and Figure 4.6-5. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, future development under the proposed project is expected to occur in existing urban areas and would be largely concentrated on a limited number of vacant parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development. These urban areas are generally located in portions of the EIR Study Area that have low liquefaction susceptibility. However, some existing urban areas in the EIR Study Area are built atop soil materials which have a high liquefaction susceptibility.

The text under the “Liquefaction” subheading of impact discussion GEO-1 o n page 4.6-18 of the Draft
EIR is hereby amended as follows:

In the event that future development is proposed on areas with potential liquefaction susceptibility, the de
velopment would be required to comply with existing regulations in of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the CBC and undergo a geotechnical review in accordance with SMMC regulations. Compliance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, CBC, SMMC, and proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions would minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction after a seismic-related ground failure, and impacts would be less than significant.

The text under the “Landslide” subheading of impact discussion GEO-1 o n page 4.6-18 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Furthermore, new development or redevelopment in any of the portions of the EIR Study Area deemed to
be within landslide-susceptible areas would be required to comply with grading, erosion, and sediment control regulations in the CBC and the provisions in of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the SMMC for geotechnical investigations. Compliance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, CBC and SMMC, as well as the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions discussed above, would minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslide after a seismic-related ground failure and ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-12 JANUARY 2024
CHAPTER 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impact discussion GHG-1 on pages 4.7-25 to 4.7-29 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy C 1.1: Sustainable Transportation. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation by increasing mode share options for sustainable travel modes, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit.
 Action C 1.1415: Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan. Coordinate with interagency partners and community stakeholders to seek funding opportunities to design, construct, and build the priority projects identified in the Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan to improve access to and from the Caltrain Stations.  Action C 2.7: New Development Shuttle Services. Encourage new developments to provide shuttle services and shuttle partnerships as an option to fulfill TDM requirements. Shuttles should serve activity centers, such as the College of San Mateo, Caltrain stations, dDowntown, the Hillsdale Shopping Center, or other areas and should accommodate the needs and schedules of all riders, including service workers.
 Policy C 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Create and maintain a safe, walkable environment in San Mateo to increase the number of pedestrians. Maintain an updated recommended pedestrian network for implementation. Encourage “superblock” or similar design in certain nodes of the city, such as the dDowntown, that allows vehicle access at the periphery and limits cut-through vehicles to create pedestrian-focused, car-light spaces.  Action C 3.7: Pedestrian Connectivity. Incorporate design for pedestrian connectivity across intersections in transportation projects, including the El Camino Real corridor, to improve visibility at crosswalks for pedestrians and provide safe interaction with other modes. Design improvements should focus on increasing sight lines and removing conflicts at crosswalks.  Policy C 4.65: Bicycle Improvements. Require new developments to construct or contribute to improvements that enhance the cyclist experience, including bicycle lanes and bicycle parking.  Policy LU 3.78: Visitor Economy. Collaborate with other Peninsula cities and the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the continued development of the visitor economy of both the city and the region, including lodging, entertainment, cultural, recreation, retail, and local events; encourage uses that attract visitors. Incentivize through fee reduction and visitor perks, sustainable modes of travel to and from the city to reduce both the use of air travel and gas-powered vehicles.

CHAPTER 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following General Plan goal, policies, and action referenced in impact discussion HAZ-1 on pages

4.8-17 to 4.8-19 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy S 1.2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Incorporate by reference the San Mateo County Multi-jJurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved by the Federal Emergency STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-13
Management Agency (FEMA) in 2021, along with any future updates or amendments, into this Safety Element in accordance with Government Code Section 65302.6.  Goal S-65: Protect the community’s health, safety, and welfare relating to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.
 Policy S 65.1: County Cooperation. Cooperate with the County of San Mateo and San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department in the regulation and transportation of hazardous materials in San Mateo. Share hazardous materials management enforcement with San Mateo County and San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department.
 Policy S 65.2: County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Adopt the San Mateo County Hazardous Waste Management Plan by reference into the Safety Element. Make amendments, as necessary, to suit local needs and issues.
 Policy S 65.3: Transportation Routes. Restrict the transportation of hazardous materials and waste to designated truck routes and limit such transportation to non-commute hours.  Policy S 65.4: Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Location. Regulate the location and operation of new hazardous waste management facilities.  Policy S 65.5: Design of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. Require the following features and mitigation measures in the design of proposed hazardous waste management facilities, including life sciences buildings, to minimize potential health, safety, and aesthetic impacts on surrounding properties and occupants:
 For sites in areas subject to flooding or inundation as shown on Figures S-5 and S-6, require facilities to have a surface elevation at least 1.5 feet above the maximum flood water level for areas containing hazardous substances or to be flood-proofed in some other manner suitable to the City.
 Require facilities to provide for full on-site containment of maximum permitted quantities of hazardous substances, including protection of storm drain or sanitary sewer inlets from accidental entry of hazardous materials.
 Require facilities to provide separate storage and/or treatment of potentially reactive substances, including separate spill containment vessels. Require that storage of hazardous gases provides adequate filtration and neutralization devices to prohibit accidental release of toxic substances.
 Require that all storage and treatment occur within an enclosed structure.  Require new facilities be sited as far away as possible within the project site from sensitive communities, such as homes, schools, playgrounds, sports fields, childcare centers, senior centers, and long-term healthcare facilities.
 Policy S 65.6: Risk Assessment. Require applications for hazardous waste management facilities to prepare a risk assessment to determine site suitability. Establish risk criteria such as distance from public facilities, residential, or immobile population and recreation areas; impacts from natural hazards (seismic, geologic, flood, and fire hazards); impacts on wetlands, endangered species, air quality, and emergency response capabilities; and proximity to major transport routes.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-14 JANUARY 2024
 Policy S 65.7: Contaminated Sites. Require the cleanup of contaminated sites, including those indicated on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) published by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and/or other agencies, such as the San Mateo County Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, in conjunction with substantial site development or redevelopment, where feasible.  Policy S 65.8: Cost Recovery. Require San Mateo County businesses that generate hazardous waste or applicants for hazardous waste management facilities to pay necessary costs for implementation of Hazardous Waste Management Plans and for application costs, and to pay for costs associated with emergency response services in the event of a hazardous material release, to the extent permitted by law.
 Action S 65.9: Shared Data. Regularly coordinate with San Mateo County to collect data on businesses that store hazardous substances to share with local emergency service providers, including the Police Department and San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, as well as the Public Works Department for the wastewater source-control program.

CHAPTER 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Figure 4.9-2, Potential Flood Hazards, on page 4.9-20 of the Draft EIR is hereby replaced with the revised figure on the following page.

The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impact discussion HYD-1 on pages 4.9-33 to 4.9-38 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy COS 3.1: Aesthetic and Habitat Values – Public Creeks. Preserve and enhance the aesthetic and habitat values of creeks, such as San Mateo, Laurel, and Beresford Creeks, and other City-owned channels in all activities affecting these creeks, including revegetation, rewilding, erosion control, and adequate setbacks for structures.  Policy PSF 3.7: Water Quality Standards. Manage City creeks, channels, and the Marina Lagoon to meet applicable State and federal water quality standards. Manage City creeks and channels for both flood protection and aquatic resources. Protect and restore creeks to a level acceptable for healthy marine and bird habitat.
 Policy PSF 3.9: Low Impact Development Green Infrastructure. Minimize stormwater runoff and pollution by requiring new green infrastructure to treat and improve stormwater quality as part of public and prove projects encouraging low-impact design (LID) features, such as pervious parking surfaces, bioswales, and filter strips in new development.  Action PSF 3.1315: City Infrastructure Studies and Master Plans. Develop and coordinate studies and master plans to assess infrastructure and to develop a Capital Improvement Program for necessary improvements. Incorporate climate change risks, such as the impacts of droughts, increasing storm events, sea level rise, and groundwater changes in the planning process.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-16 JANUARY 2024
 Action PSF 3.1416: Stormwater Treatment. Continue to participate in the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, “Flows to Bay,” to ensure compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pPermit, to prevent water pollution from point and non-point sources.  Action PSF 3.1617: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Education. Partner with other agencies and organizations, such as Flows to Bay, to help inform residents and businesses of ways to protect water quality and prevent stormwater pollution.  Action PSF 3.1718: Stormwater Requirements for Development. In accordance with State regulatory mandates, require applicable new and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design, source control, treatment, and hydromodification management measures to minimize stormwater runoff volumes and associated pollutants. Stormwater management via green infrastructure systems shall be prioritized.
 Action PSF 3.18: Incentives for Low-Impact Development. Develop and implement incentives to encourage applicants to include low-impact design features in new development.  Action PSF 3.1519: Green Infrastructure Plan. Implement the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan to gradually shift from a traditional stormwater conveyance system (“gray”) to a more natural system that incorporates plants and soils to mimic watershed processes, capture and clean stormwater, reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and create healthier environments (“green”).  Action PSF 3.20: Stormwater Management Funding. Establish a dedicated funding source for stormwater management.

The last sentence of the second to last paragraph under impact discussion HYD-2 on page 4.9-39 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Proposed Action PSF 3.135 would require the City to develop and coordinate studies and master plans to assess infrastructure and to develop a Capital Improvement Program for necessary improvements and incorporate groundwater changes in the planning process.

The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impa ct discussion HYD-3 on pages 4.9-40 to 4.9-43 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy S 1.2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Incorporate by reference the San Mateo County Multi-jJurisdictional l Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2021, along with any future updates or amendments, into this Safety Element in accordance with Government Code Section 65302.6.  Action S 1.1617: Evacuation Routes. Maintain adequate evacuation routes as identified by arterial streets shown in the Circulation Element, Figure C-3. Evaluate each evacuation route’s feasibility using a range of hazard criteria. Update this map on a regular basis to reflect changing conditions and State requirements for evacuation routes.  Action S 1.1718: Regular Updates. Update the Safety Element with each Housing Element update, or every eight years, as necessary, to meet State and local requirements.  Action S 1.1819: Automatic and Mutual-Aid Agreements. Participate in mutual-aid agreements with other local jurisdictions to provide coordinated regional responses, as necessary, to fire, STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-17
flood, earthquake, critical incidents, and other hazard events in San Mateo and the surrounding area. Work with local jurisdictions to share resources and develop regional plans to implement disaster mitigation and resilience strategies, such as government continuity, emergency operations centers, and communications redundancies.
 Action S 1.2729: Emergency Notification System. Develop an emergency notification system (e.g., SMC Alert and Nixle) for flood-prone neighborhoods and businesses before, during, and after a climate hazard event, to assist with evacuation and other support activities. This includes coordination with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) on its early flood warning notification system.  Policy PSF 3.13: Marina Lagoon. Continue to maintain the Marina Lagoon as flood control infrastructure that accounts for climate change risks and major flood events.

CHAPTER 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The text under the “Measure Y” subheading on page 4.10-4 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Approved in November 2020, this measure extended the expiration date of General Plan policies that limit
ed building heights, densities, and intensities to December 2030. These limits were originally established by Measure H, passed voter-approved in 1991, and continued by Measure P , passed voter- approved in 2004. Overall, the Measure Y height limit is set up to 55 feet, the density limit allows up to 50 units per acre, and the FAR limit allows a maximum of up to 3.0. The height limit allows for exceptions in certain locations and under certain circumstances, and State Density Bonus law allows projects to exceed both height and density limits when certain percentages of affordable units are provided. On top of this date extension, Measure Y also broadened the inclusionary housing ordinance to apply to rental housing projects. This law requires developers of rental projects to either provide off-site construction of units or other alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. This measure does not permit the payment of in-6 in-lieu fees as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement.6
The following text is hereby added to impact discussion LU-2 on page 4.10-18 of the Draft EIR before the “Non-Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations” subheading:

Measure Y
Measure Y is a ballot measure approved by voters in November 2020 that retained existing height and density limits on new development, originally adopted under earlier ballot measures (Measure P and Measure H). As discussed in the Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan 2040, some of the land use designations of the proposed project include building heights, densities and intensities that exceed the limits set by 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 STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-18 JANUARY 2024
default to the provisions specified in Measure Y . Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with Measure Y , and the impact would be less than significant.

The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impact discussion LU-2 on pages 4.10-12 to 4.10-20 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy LU 1.2: General Plan 2040 Maximum Development. Maintain the City’s ability to rely on the General Plan EIR to approve future discretionary actions. When approved development within City Limits and unincorporated properties within the Sphere of Influence reaches the number of new residential units and net new nonresidential square feet below, require that environmental review conducted for any subsequent development project address growth impacts that would occur from further development:
 19,764 new dwelling units
 3,186,000 square feet of new nonresidential floor area The General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assumes the following development projections for the year 2040:
 Up to 21,410 new dwelling units.
 Up to 4,325,000 square feet of new nonresidential floor area When approved nonresidential development reaches half of the anticipated development, evaluate the citywide jobs-housing balance.[1]
Footnote 1: The General Plan Update Draft EIR (August 2023) analyzed a buildout potential of 21,410 new dwelling units and 4,325,000 square feet of new nonresidential floor area. During the public review period for the Draft General Plan 2040 and Draft EIR, changes were incorporated into the final adopted General Plan that reduced the residential and nonresidential development capacity. This policy reflects the reduced amounts, as acknowledged in the General Plan Update Final EIR (January 2024).

When approved development within City Limits and unincorporated properties within the Sphere of Influence reaches the maximum number of new residential units and net new nonresidential square feet projected in the General Plan EIR, require that environmental review conducted for any subsequent development project address growth impacts that would occur from development exceeding the General Plan EIR’s projections.  Policy LU 3.78: Visitor Economy. Collaborate with other Peninsula cities and the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the continued development of the visitor economy of both the city and the region, including lodging, entertainment, cultural, recreation, retail, and local events; encourage uses that attract visitors. Incentivize through fee reduction and visitor perks, sustainable modes of travel to and from the city to reduce both the use of air travel and gas-powered vehicles.
 Policy LU 4.1: Downtown Land Uses. Allow and prioritize a wide range of residential, dining, cultural, entertainment, lodging, and other commercial uses downtown, at high intensities and densities, with strong multi-modal connectivity to the San Mateo Caltrain station and other transit.
 Action LU 4.4: Downtown Area Plan. Update the Downtown Area Plan to support and strengthen the Downtown as a vibrant and active commercial, cultural, entertainment, and community gathering district. The updated Downtown Area Plan shall align with the General STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-19
Plan, integrate recommendations from other concurrent City efforts, focus growth and intensity in proximity to the Caltrain station, encourage superblock concepts or approaches and allow parklets, update parking standards and parking management strategies, allow for increased housing units and density, and support high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design and architecture.
 Action LU 6.3: Hillsdale Station Area Plan. Update the Hillsdale Station Area Plan to foster higher-density residential, office and mixed-use, transit-oriented development that connects to neighborhoods to the east and west, improves bicycle and pedestrian circulation connectivity to west of the station, and increases park and open space areas.  Action LU 7.3: Bel Mateo Area Plan. Prepare a Specific Plan or Master Plan to guide redevelopment of the Bel Mateo area into a mixed-use neighborhood with a diverse range of neighborhood-serving commercial uses and amenities; new market-rate and affordable housing,; ample facilities to support bicycling and walking; and publicly accessible park and open space areas.
 Action LU 8.8: Streetscape and Safety Improvements. Work with residents in equity priority communities to identify sidewalk, lighting, landscaping, and roadway improvements needed to improve routes to parks, schools, recreation facilities, and other destinations within the community. Prioritize investments to that address health disparities in equity priority communities in the annual Capital Improvement Program.
 Policy LU 14.1: Inter-Aagency Cooperation. Promote and participate in cooperative planning with other public agencies and the jurisdictions within San Mateo County, such as the 21 Elements regional collaboration, regarding regional issues such as water supply, traffic congestion, rail transportation, wildfire hazards, air pollution, waste management, fire services, emergency medical services, and climate change.

CHAPTER 4.11 NOISE
Table 4.11-8, Proposed General Plan Noise-Sensitive Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, on page 4.11- 30 of the Draft EIR is hereby replaced with the table on the following page.

The following General Plan policy referenced in impact discussion NOISE-1 on pages 4.11-29 to 4.11-46 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Policy N 1.3: Exterior Noise Level Standard for Residential Uses. Require an acoustical analysis for new multifamily common open space for residents that have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA (Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N-2 [of the proposed General Plan]. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into residential project design to minimize common open space noise levels. Maximum exterior noise should not exceed 65 dBA (Ldn) for residential uses and should not exceed 65 dBA (Ldn) for public park uses.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-20 JANUARY 2024
The impact statement in impact discussion NOISE-4 on page 4.11-51 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Impact NOISE-6 4: Buildout under the proposed project is anticipated to result in unacceptable cumulative traffic noise within the EIR Study Area.

TABLE 4.11-8 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES

Source: City of San Mateo, Proposed Strive General Plan 2040, Table N-1.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-21
CHAPTER 4.12 PARKS AND RECREATION
The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impact discussion REC-1 on pages 4.12-8 to 4.12-14 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy COS 2.3: Equitable Conservation. Prioritize preservation, restoration, re-wilding, and enhancement of natural landscapes in or near underserved communities for their role in improving air quality and community health.
 Action COS 6.67: Inclusion and Accessibility. Create policies, programs, and facility designs that are age-integrated, inclusive, respectful, and supportive for all members of the community.

Expand cultural awareness and appreciation through culturally relevant programs and special events.
 Action COS 6.78: Privately Owned Public Spaces Inventory. Develop and maintain a list of all publicly accessible private open space in the city.
 Action COS 6.89: Resident Input. Solicit a broad spectrum of resident input for major park improvements or park master plans. Conduct multilingual and culturally sensitive outreach to ensure all voices are included in park planning efforts and that San Mateo’s parks reflect the diversity of the community.
 Action COS 6.910: Public Information. Communicate through diverse channels and in multiple languages the benefits and value park and recreation services bring in making San Mateo a more livable, economically viable, and socially responsible community.  Action COS 6.101: Technology Innovation. Identify and incorporate technology innovations as an ongoing strategy to better serve the public, e.g., virtual trail maps, digitalized park signage, virtual programming.
 Policy COS 7.3: Walkable Parks and Amenities. Provide accessible public parks or other recreational opportunities that are within approximately one-third of a mile (a 15-minute walk) of residents without travel over significant barriers. Ideally, one or more of the following amenities should be available: multipurpose turf area, children’s play area with preschool and youth apparatus, seating areas, picnic areas, a multiuse court, and an opportunity for passive enjoyment of an aesthetically landscaped space.
 Policy COS 8.8: San Mateo City Parks and Recreation Foundation. Continue to support the San Mateo City Parks and Recreation Foundation efforts to expand non-cCity resource opportunities, such as funding and volunteers, in support of park development, improvements, and maintenance.

CHAPTER 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The following General Plan policy and action referenced in impact discussion POP-1 on pages 4.13-8 to

4.13-10 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy LU 1.2: General Plan 2040 Maximum Development. Maintain the City’s ability to rely on the General Plan EIR to approve future discretionary actions. When approved development STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-22 JANUARY 2024
within City Limits and unincorporated properties within the Sphere of Influence reaches the number of new residential units and net new nonresidential square feet below, require that environmental review conducted for any subsequent development project address growth impacts that would occur from further development:
 19,764 new dwelling units
 3,186,000 square feet of new nonresidential floor area The General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assumes the following development projections for the year 2040:
 Up to 21,410 new dwelling units
 Up to 4,325,000 square feet of new nonresidential floor area When approved nonresidential development reaches half of the anticipated development, evaluate the citywide jobs-housing balance.[1]
Footnote 1: The General Plan Update Draft EIR (August 2023) analyzed a buildout potential of 21,410 new dwelling units and 4,325,000 square feet of new nonresidential floor area. During the public review period for the Draft General Plan 2040 and Draft EIR, changes were incorporated into the final adopted General Plan that reduced the residential and nonresidential development capacity. This policy reflects the reduced amounts, as acknowledged in the General Plan Update Final EIR (January 2024).

The following General Plan policy referenced in impact discussion POP-2 on pages 4.13-11 to 4.13-13 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Policy LU 2.3: Community Benefits. Develop a framework to allow density/intensity bonuses and concessions in exchange for the provision of community benefits, such as additional affordable housing, increased open space, public plazas or recreational facilities, subsidized retail space for small businesses, subsidized community space for nonprofits that provide community support services or childcare facilities, pedestrian and multimodal safety improvements, and/or off-site infrastructure improvements above minimum requirements.  The framework shall allow for nonresidential development (office and commercial) within ¼- mile of the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain stations to have heights up to eight-stories when commensurate community benefits are provided.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-23
CHAPTER 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
The following General Plan policy and actions referenced in impact discussion PS-1 on pages 4.14-5 to

4.14-8 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy LU 14.1: Inter-Aagency Cooperation. Promote and participate in cooperative planning with other public agencies and the jurisdictions within San Mateo County, such as the 21 Elements regional collaboration, regarding regional issues such as water supply, traffic congestion, rail transportation, wildfire hazards, air pollution, waste management, fire services, emergency medical services, and climate change.
 Action PSF 1.8: Police and Fire Cover Assessments. 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 available to meet community needs as the City’s population grows.
 Action S 1.189: Automatic and Mutual-Aid Agreements. Participate in mutual-aid agreements with other local jurisdictions to provide coordinated regional responses, as necessary, to fire, flood, earthquake, critical incidents, and other hazard events in San Mateo and the surrounding area. Work with local jurisdictions to share resources and develop regional plans to implement disaster mitigation and resilience strategies, such as government continuity, emergency operations centers, and communications redundancies.
 Action S 1.234: Community Training. Collaborate with SMC Fire to provide emergency preparedness trainings to maintain and expand existing Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs).
 Action S 1.245: Emergency Infrastructure and Equipment. Establish systems to ensure that traffic lights at major intersections, communications and radio infrastructure, and other critical infrastructure continues to function in the event of a localized power outage. Repair any damaged sets of infrastructure or equipment as needed to continue City operations.

The following General Plan policy and action referenced in impact discussion PS-5 on pages 4.14-18 to

4.14-19 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy PSF 5.7: Incentives for Public Facilities. Provide incentives to developers for projects that include needed to encourage space for public facilities in new development.  Action PSF 6.68: School District Coordination. Maintain effective, collaborative relationships with all local school districts.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-24 JANUARY 2024
CHAPTER 4.15 TRANSPORTATION
The text under “California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358)” subheading on pages

4.15-1 and 4.15-2 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358) Originally passed in 2008, California’s Complete Streets Act took effect in 2011 and requires local jurisdictions to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete streets” approach to mobility. “Complete streets” comprises a suite of policies and street design guidelines which provide for the needs of all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders, children, the elderly, and the disabled. From 2011 onward, any local jurisdiction—county or city—that undertakes a substantive update of the circulation element of its general plan must consider “complete streets” and incorporate corresponding policies and programs.

In December 2021, Dir
ectors Policy 37 was adopted which establishes an implementation structure to streamline complete street projects. This policy also stipulates that all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved.1 This policy supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and carries forward its goals of creating a safe and reliable transportation network.
1 California Department of Transportation, December 2021, Directors Policy Dp-37, https://dot.ca.gov/-/me dia/dot- media/programs/esta/documents/dp-37-complete-streets-a11y.pdf accessed on October 31, 2023.

The following text is hereby added under the “State Regulations” subheading on page 4.15-4 of the Draft EIR before the “Local Regulations” subheading:

Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan
The District 4 Bike Plan, adopted in 2018, identifies infrastructure improvements that can enhance bicycle safety and mobility while removing barriers to bicycling in the region.3 To do this, community outreach was done, existing conditions were surveyed, and needs were prioritized. District 4 encompasses the nine Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County. Identified infrastructure improvements for the City of San Mateo include new separated crossings, interchange reconstruction, and corridor improvements.
3 California Department of Transportation, 2018, Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-bike-plan/caltransd4bikeplan_report_lowres-r6.pdf, accessed on October 31, 2023.

Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area
Adopted in 2021, the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area identifies pedestrian needs on Caltrans roadways in District 4. This plan analyzes the frequency and quality of crossing opportunities, as well as sidewalk coverage and conditions. Needs were then prioritized and areas for improvement were STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-25
identified. The next steps in the plan include leveraging local partnerships and identifying and initiating projects.

The text under the “Roadway System” subheading on pages 4.15-7 and 4.15-8 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The roadway system in the City of San Mateo is made up of freeways an d expressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, and local streets and alleyways. Each is described in detail below. The proposed existing classification as part of the proposed project as designated by Caltrans is shown on Figure 4.15-1, Proposed Existing Street Classification.

Freeways and Expressways
Freeways and expressways are roadways without intersections that allow users to reach destinations outside of the city, either by car or transit. There are two freeways in the City of San Mateo: US Highway 101 and State Route 92 (SR-92). Interstate 280 (I-280) also provides regional access to the community and is located just west of the City’s Sphere of Influence.

US Highway 101 is an 8- to 10-lane north-south freeway that traverses the easterly portion of the city. US Highway 101 extends northward through San Francisco and southward through San Jose and is a roadway of regional significance to the intercity circulation within the Bay Area. US Highway 101 provides access to the city via eight interchanges. One of the interchanges is a freeway-to-freeway interchange with SR-92. Two of the interchanges, at 3
rd Avenue/4th Avenue and at Hillsdale Boulevard,
are full-access interchanges. The remaining five interchanges are partial access interchanges. Within the City Limits, average daily traffic volumes on US Highway 101 range between 240,000 south of SR-92 and 270,000 north of SR-92. Managed toll lanes were recently added to Highway 101 connecting from Santa Clara County boundary to I-380 in San Mateo County.

SR-92 is a 4- to 6-lane east-west freeway extending from Half Moon Bay in west San Mateo County to Hayward in Alameda County. SR-92 traverses across the San Francisco Bay via a six-lane bridge (San Mateo Bridge), which is one of the seven bridges that cross the San Francisco Bay within the Bay Area.

SR-92 provides access to the city via eight interchanges. One of the interchanges is a freeway-to-freeway interchange with US Highway 101. All remaining interchanges are full-access interchanges. Within City Limits, average daily traffic volumes on SR-92 range between 60,000 to 80,000 west of El Camino Real, approximately 100,000 between El Camino Real and US Highway 101, and over 150,000 east of US Highway 101.

Principal Arterials
Arterial Principal arterial streets connect the regional roadway network with minor arterials and collectors. Most intersections along principal arterials are signalized, often with a coordinated and interconnected signal system. Compared to collectors minor arterials, principal arterials have higher capacity to accommodate traffic volumes, and they provide for longer, continuous movement throughout the city. Arterials typically serve between 10,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day. Access to most freeway interchanges within the city are provided by arterials. Unlike a freeway, travelers can access destinations directly from the primary arterial through driveways and at-grade intersections with other STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-26 JANUARY 2024
roadways. The annual average daily traffic volume for principal arterials is generally between 7,000 to 27,000 trips. El Camino Real is the only principal arterial in San Mateo.

El Camino Real (SR-82) is owned by Caltrans and is a four- to six-lane north-south arterial within the city that is of regional significance. El Camino Real extends from Santa Clara County through San Mateo County. Within the City Limits, El Camino Real provides access to the Hillsdale Shopping Center, Downtown San Mateo, the Hillsdale Caltrain Station, and nearby residential neighborhoods. El Camino Real provides direct access to SR-92 via a full interchange.

Minor Arterials
Minor arterials are used for trips of moderate length, serve smaller geographic areas than principal arterials and offer connections between principal arterials and other roadways. The annual average daily traffic volume for minor arterials is 3,000 to 14,000 trips. Some of the minor arterials in the City include Hillsdale Boulevard, Alameda de las Pulgas, Poplar Avenue, and Delaware Street.

Major Collectors
Collectors link neighborhoods together and allow travelers to reach places outside of their neighborhoods. They have higher speeds than local streets and can handle more traffic volume.

Collectors typically serve between 1,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. While access to freeway interchanges within the EIR Study Area is mostly provided by arterials, two collector roads (North Bayshore Boulevard, and Kehoe Avenue) provide access to two partial interchanges with US Highway 101. Major collectors gather traffic from local roads and funnel it to arterials. Compared to local roadways, major collectors are longer, have fewer driveways, and may have more than two travel lanes.

The annual average daily traffic volume for major collectors is 1,100 to 6,300 trips. Some of the major collectors include Palm Avenue, B Street, Hacienda Street, and Grant Street.

Local Streets and Alleyways
Local streets and alleyways make up the majority of the roadway system in San Mateo and typically have lower speeds and vehicular traffic volumes. These provide direct access to adjacent land uses. The annual average daily traffic volume for local roads is 80 to 700 trips.

Figure 4.15-1, Proposed Street Classification, on page 4.15-9 of the Draft EIR is hereby replaced with the revised figure on the following page.

The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impact discussion TRAN-1 on pages 4.15- 13 to 4.15-22 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy C 1.1: Sustainable Transportation. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation by increasing mode share options for sustainable travel modes, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit.
 Action C 1.11: Complete Streets Plan. Complete and implement the Complete Streets Plan, including pedestrian, bicycling, and transit infrastructure, to improve the City’s circulation network to accommodate the needs of street users of all ages and abilities.

E 28thAve
YaleDr
42nd Ave
La S
elva S
t
W 3rdAve
W 20th Ave
Palm
Ave
9th Ave
37th Ave
SBSt
DeAnz a Blvd
W Poplar Ave
SGrantSt
Roberta
Dr
NewbridgeAve
Kehoe Ave
Shoreview
Ave
16th Ave
Barneson Ave
Borel Ave
Maple
St
2nd Ave
Ediso
nSt
Monte Diablo AveTilton Ave
HaciendaSt
GlendoraDr
LosPrados
28th Ave
31st Ave
NAmph
lettBlvd
Aragon Blvd
Parrot
tDr
Ca
mpusDr
Figure 4.15-1
Existing Street Classification
Source: Caltrans, 2022; PlaceWorks, 2023.
0 10.5
Miles

TRANSPORTATION

CITY OF SAN MATEO
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R

P L A C E W O R K S
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Caltrain
Creeks and Waterways
Street Classification
Freeway or Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Local
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-28 JANUARY 2024
 Action C 1.13: El Camino Real Improvements. Collaborate with Caltrans, SamTrans, and other partners to support accommodating higher-capacity and higher-frequency travel along El Camino Real, Bus Rapid Transit, and other modes of alternative transportation.  Action C 1.145: Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan. Coordinate with interagency partners and community stakeholders to seek funding opportunities to design, construct, and build the priority projects identified in the Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan to improve access to and from the Caltrain Stations.  Policy C 5.1: Increase Transit Ridership. Support SamTrans and Caltrain in their efforts to increase transit ridership and frequency of transit services.  Policy C 5.2: Caltrain and SamTrans. Support Caltrain and SamTrans as a critical transit service providers in the city and Peninsula.
 Policy C 5.6: Transit Safety. Prioritize improvements that enhance pedestrian connectivity to transit and to increase safety, access, and comfort at transit centers and bus stops in equity priority communities, along commercial corridors, and in dense, mixed-use neighborhoods.  Action C 5.1011: Transit Experience Improvements. Prioritize installing new transit shelters and benches or other seating and an energy-efficient street lighting program at transit stops using SamTrans standards in equity priority communities and areas that improve transit access, safety, and experience.
 Action C 5.1112: Shuttle Programs. Continue to support public shuttle programs connecting to Caltrain stations. Work to expand public awareness and access to shuttles and expand shuttle service. Support the implementation of publicly accessible private shuttles.  Policy LU 4.1: Downtown Land Uses. Allow and prioritize a wide range of residential, dining, cultural, entertainment, lodging, and other commercial uses downtown, at high intensities and densities, with strong multi-modal connectivity to the San Mateo Caltrain station and other transit.
 Action LU 6.3: Hillsdale Station Area Plan. Update the Hillsdale Station Area Plan to foster higher-density residential, office and mixed-use, transit-oriented development that connects to neighborhoods to the east and west, improves bicycle and pedestrian circulation connectivity to west of the station, and increases park and open space areas.  Action C 2.7: New Development Shuttle Services. Encourage new developments to provide shuttle services and shuttle partnerships as an option to fulfill TDM requirements. Shuttles should serve activity centers, such as the College of San Mateo, Caltrain stations, dDowntown, the Hillsdale Shopping Center, or other areas and should accommodate the needs and schedules of all riders, including service workers.
 Policy C 6.4: Operations Analysis for Development Projects. Require new development to determine the need for new or modified circulation improvements, operations, or alignments where developments identify operational deficiencies that were not previously identified in a transportation impact fee study. Require development applicants to prepare an analysis to determine the need for modifications, such as signalization, turn restrictions, roundabouts, etc.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-29
Require applicants to fund identified off-site improvements if warranted, as determined by the legally appropriate transportation analysis, and as approved by City staff.  Action C 6.910: Network Operations Standard. Evaluate and adopt an operational metric for all roadway users that accounts for the safe, equitable, and efficient roadway access.  Action C 6.1011: Prioritization and Timing of Roadway Improvements. Revise the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prioritization system to include additional criteria, such as: potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita; proximity to high-injury locations identified in the Local Roads Safety Plan; eligibility and availability of grant or other funding source; benefit or harm to equity priority communities; and correlation with the distribution and pace of development, reflecting the degree of need for mitigation.  Action C 6.1112: Congestion Management. Work with neighboring agencies and regional partners, such as the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), to implement traffic management strategies and technologies, such as signal coordination, to manage local traffic congestion.
 Policy C 1.5: El Camino Real. Facilitate efficient travel and pedestrian safety along El Camino Real by supporting improvements that enhance pedestrian connectivity, such as improved pedestrian crossings.
 Policy C 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Create and maintain a safe, walkable environment in San Mateo to increase the number of pedestrians. Maintain an updated recommended pedestrian network for implementation. Encourage “superblock” or similar design in certain nodes of the city, such as the dDowntown, that allows vehicle access at the periphery and limits cut-through vehicles to create pedestrian-focused, car-light spaces.  Action C 3.7: Pedestrian Connectivity. Incorporate design for pedestrian connectivity across intersections in transportation projects, including the El Camino Real corridor, to improve visibility at crosswalks for pedestrians and provide safe interaction with other modes. Design improvements should focus on increasing sight lines and removing conflicts at crosswalks.  Policy C 4.4: Bicycle and Shared Mobility-Related Technology. Explore ways to use technology to improve bicycle and shared mobility safety and connectivity.  Policy C 4.65: Bicycle Improvements. Require new developments to construct or contribute to improvements that enhance the cyclist experience, including bicycle lanes and bicycle parking.  Policy C 4.76: Coordination with Other City Projects. Maximize opportunities to implement bicycle facilities through other City of San Mateo projects.  Policy C 4.87: Interjurisdiction Coordination. Continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and regional partners in the development of connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities and regional trails, as identified in adopted City plans.
 Policy LU 2.3: Community Benefits. Develop a framework to allow density/intensity bonuses and concessions in exchange for the provision of community benefits, such as additional affordable housing, increased open space, public plazas or recreational facilities, subsidized retail space for small businesses, subsidized community space for nonprofits that provide community STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-30 JANUARY 2024
support services or childcare facilities, pedestrian and multimodal safety improvements, and/or off-site infrastructure improvements above minimum requirements.  The framework shall allow for nonresidential development (office and commercial) within ¼- mile of the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain stations to have heights up to eight-stories when commensurate community benefits are provided.
 Action LU 4.4: Downtown Area Plan. Update the Downtown Area Plan to support and strengthen the Downtown as a vibrant and active commercial, cultural, entertainment, and community gathering district. The updated Downtown Area Plan shall align with the General Plan, integrate recommendations from other concurrent City efforts, focus growth and intensity in proximity to the Caltrain station, encourage superblock concepts or approaches and allow parklets, update parking standards and parking management strategies, allow for increased housing units and density, and support high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design and architecture.

The following General Plan action referenced in impa
ct discussion TRAN-3 on pages 4.15-24 to 4.15-25
of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Action C 1.18: Safety Education. Pursue Provide safety education to increase awareness of roadway safety practices for all street users.

The following General Plan policy and actions referenced in impact discussion TRAN-4 on pages 4.15- 25 to 4.15-27 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy LU 14.1: Inter-Aagency Cooperation. Promote and participate in cooperative planning with other public agencies and the jurisdictions within San Mateo County, such as the 21 Elements regional collaboration, regarding regional issues such as water supply, traffic congestion, rail transportation, wildfire hazards, air pollution, waste management, fire services, emergency medical services, and climate change.
 Action S 1.1617: Evacuation Routes. Maintain adequate evacuation routes as identified by arterial streets shown in the Circulation Element, Figure C-3 [of the proposed General Plan].

Evaluate each evacuation route’s feasibility using a range of hazard criteria. Update this map on a regular basis to reflect changing conditions and State requirements for evacuation routes.  Action S 1.2223: Public Safety Outreach. Develop a public safety education program to increase public awareness of potential hazards, City’s emergency readiness and response program, and evacuation routes. Target public education programs to segments of the community that are most vulnerable to hazards and safety risks.
 Action S 1.2425: Emergency Infrastructure and Equipment. Establish systems to ensure that traffic lights at major intersections, communications and radio infrastructure, and other critical infrastructure continues to function in the event of a localized power outage. Repair any damaged sets of infrastructure or equipment as needed to continue City operations.  Action S 1.2627: Response Time Study. Conduct a Response Time Study to provide a data-driven understanding of how future roadway safety improvements could impact emergency response times and use this information to adjust proposed roadway improvements as needed.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-31
 Action S 1.2729: Emergency Notification System. Develop an emergency notification system (e.g., SMC Alert and Nixle) for flood-prone neighborhoods and businesses before, during, and after a climate hazard event, to assist with evacuation and other support activities. This includes coordination with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) on its early flood warning notification system.

CHAPTER 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
The second bullet point on page 4.17-20 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 EMID will coordinate with the City of San Mateo, SFPUC, and BAWSCA to assess options for using recycled water in the future to offset new potable water demands.  EMID is in the process of developing has developed a water neutral growth policy for new development.
 EMID has completed a Recycled Water Facilities Plan (2017) with the City of San Mateo that discusses ways to provide recycled water to both service areas and/or use recycled water produced at the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for regional potable reuse opportunities (e.g., installing a pipeline from the WWTP to SFPUC’s Lower Crysal Springs Reservoir).

The following General Plan actions referenced in impact discussion UTIL-1 on pages 4.17-20 to 4.17-28 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Action PSF 2.10: Water-Reduction Strategies. Work with California Water Service, Estero Municipal Improvement District, Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency, and other mid- peninsula cities to promote water-reduction strategies and to create an outreach program that will help inform residents and businesses of increased costs, the need for conservation efforts, and available incentives and rebates.
 Action PSF 2.11: Water Purification Facility. Continue working with California Water Service, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency, the City of Redwood City, and Silicon Valley Clean Water to develop an advanced water purification facility that treats wastewater from the San Mateo wastewater treatment plan to tertiary treatment standards.
 Action PSF 2.1211: Water Usage. Work with California Water Service to collect and track water use by land use type and make this information available to the community.

The following General Plan policies and action referenced in impa ct discussion UTIL-4 on pages 4.17-39 to 4.17-42 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy PSF 3.5: Inter-Aagency Coordination for Wastewater Planning. Coordinate future planning of the sewer collection and wastewater treatment plant with the other users of the systems, including the Estero Municipal Improvement District (City of Foster City), the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District, Town of Hillsborough, and City of Belmont.  Policy PSF 3.14: City Utility Programs Funding. Maintain adequate, sustained, and dedicated revenue sources for City utility programs to support the sanitary sewer system, stormwater system, and refuse collection.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-32 JANUARY 2024
 Action PSF 3.1315: City Infrastructure Studies and Master Plans. Develop and coordinate studies and master plans to assess infrastructure and to develop a Capital Improvement Program for necessary improvements. Incorporate climate change risks, such as the impacts of droughts, increasing storm events, sea level rise, and groundwater changes in the planning process.

The following General Plan goal, policies, and action referenced in impa ct discussion UTIL-7 on pages

4.17-50 to 4.17-51 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Goal PSF-89: Reduce the generation of solid waste and increase the diversion of waste from landfills.  Policy PSF 89.1: Solid Waste Disposal. Support waste reduction and diversion programs to reduce solid waste materials in landfill areas in accordance with State requirements.  Policy PSF 89.2: Recycling. Support programs to recycle solid waste and require provisions for on-site recycling in new development, in compliance with sState requirements.  Policy PSF 89.3: Composting. Maintain the curbside composting program and expand composting of organics in accordance with sState requirements.  Action PSF 89.4: Waste Reduction. Reduce waste sent to landfills by San Mateo’s residents, businesses, and visitors, as required by sState law and San Mateo Municipal Code, by mandating recycling and compost programs, setting aggressive waste-reduction goals for all development, and implementing appropriate solid waste rates to recover cost of services provided. Supportive actions for waste reduction are detailed in the Climate Action Plan.

The following General Plan policies and actions referenced in impa ct discussion UTIL-10 on pages 4.17-
58 to 4.17-59 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy PSF 3.9: Low Impact Development Green Infrastructure. Minimize stormwater runoff and pollution by requiring new green infrastructure to treat and improve stormwater quality as part of public and prove projects encouraging low-impact design (LID) features, such as pervious parking surfaces, bioswales, and filter strips in new development.  Policy PSF 3.14: City Utility Programs Funding. Maintain adequate, sustained, and dedicated revenue sources for City utility programs to support the sanitary sewer system, stormwater system, and refuse collection.
 Action PSF 3.1315: City Infrastructure Studies and Master Plans. Develop and coordinate studies and master plans to assess infrastructure and to develop a Capital Improvement Program for necessary improvements. Incorporate climate change risks, such as the impacts of droughts, increasing storm events, sea level rise, and groundwater changes in the planning process.  Action PSF 3.1718: Stormwater Requirements for Development. In accordance with State regulatory mandates, require applicable new and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design, source control, treatment, and hydromodification management measures to minimize stormwater runoff volumes and associated pollutants. Stormwater management via green infrastructure systems shall be prioritized.
 Action PSF 3.18: Incentives for Low-Impact Development. Develop and implement incentives to encourage applicants to include low-impact design features in new development.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-33
 Action PSF 3.1519: Green Infrastructure Plan. Implement the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan to gradually shift from a traditional stormwater conveyance system (“gray”) to a more natural system that incorporates plants and soils to mimic watershed processes, capture and clean stormwater, reduce runoff and increase infiltration, and create healthier environments (“green”).  Action PSF 3.20: Stormwater Management Funding. Establish a dedicated funding source for stormwater management.

The following General Plan goal and policies referenced in impact discussion UTIL-12 on pages 4.17-68 to 4.17-71 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Goal PSF-4: Promote the development of a clean energy supply, energy-efficient technology, and telecommunications facilities that benefit all members of the community.  Policy PSF 4.1: Clean Energy. Support the advancement of a carbon-neutral energy supply.  Policy PSF 4.2: Energy Conservation. Support efforts to reduce per-capita energy use.  Policy PSF 4.6: Renewable Energy Neighborhood Microgrids. Encourage the establishment of renewable energy neighborhood microgrids to support resilience, especially within equity priority communities.
 Policy PSF 4.7: Service Improvement and Expansion. Seek to ensure adequate energy and communication systems to serve existing and future needs while minimizing impacts on existing and future residents by requiring new development to underground power lines and provide underground connections, when feasible, and prioritizing cellular coverage for all areas of the city while appropriately minimizing visual impacts of cellular facilities, antennas, and equipment shelters.

CHAPTER 4.18 WILDFIRE
Figure 4.18-5, Potential Evacuation Routes, on page 4.18-23 of the Draft EIR is hereby replaced with the revised figure on the following page.

The following General Plan goal, policies, and actions referenced in impact discussion WILD-1 on pages

4.18-25 to 4.18-28 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy S 1.15: Emergency Preparedness. Coordinate with San Mateo County, neighboring cities, and non-governmental partners to effectively prepare for and respond to hazards and natural disasters.
 Policy S 1.16: Evacuation Planning. Cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions and public protection agencies to delineate evacuation routes and locations, identifying their capacity, safety, and viability under different hazard scenarios, as well as emergency vehicle routes for disaster response, and where possible, alternate routes where congestion or road failure could occur. Update as new information and technologies become available.

E 28thAve
YaleDr
42nd Ave
La S
elva S
t
W 3rdAve
W 20th Ave
Palm
Ave
9th Ave
37th Ave
SBSt
DeAnz a Blvd
W Poplar Ave
SGrantSt
Roberta
Dr
NewbridgeAve
Kehoe Ave
Shoreview
Ave
16th Ave
Barneson Ave
Borel Ave
Maple
St
2nd Ave
Ediso
nSt
Monte Diablo AveTilton Ave
HaciendaSt
GlendoraDr
LosPrados
28th Ave
31st Ave
NAmph
lettBlvd
Aragon Blvd
Parrot
tDr
Ca
mpusDr
Figure 4.18-5
Potential Evacuation Routes
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023.
0 10.5
Miles

WILDFIRE

CITY OF SAN MATEO
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R

P L A C E W O R K S
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Caltrain
Creeks and Waterways
Potential Evacuation
Routes
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-35
 Action S 1.1617: Evacuation Routes. Maintain adequate evacuation routes as identified by arterial streets shown in the Circulation Element, Figure C-3. Evaluate each evacuation route’s feasibility using a range of hazard criteria. Update this map on a regular basis to reflect changing conditions and State requirements for evacuation routes.  Action S 1.1819: Automatic and Mutual-Aid Agreements. Participate in mutual-aid agreements with other local jurisdictions to provide coordinated regional responses, as necessary, to fire, flood, earthquake, critical incidents and other hazard events in San Mateo and the surrounding area. Work with local jurisdictions to share resources and develop regional plans to implement disaster mitigation and resilience strategies such as government continuity, emergency operations centers, communications redundancies.
 Action S 1.20: Community Centers and Recreation Spaces. Create an inventory of existing community center facilities and recreation spaces and assess their readiness to serve as a community shelter during a disaster. Following the inventory, create a facilities improvement plan that addresses deficiencies found in each facility or recreation space to improve resilience and disaster preparedness in the city.
 Action S 1.2021: Rebuilding Priorities. Establish rebuilding priorities and procedures in the event of a major disaster to expedite reconstruction and enhance access to funding opportunities with special emphasis on equity priority communities that are more vulnerable to climate hazards.  Action S 1.22: Resilient Power Systems. Explore the feasibility of on-site power generation and storage at City facilities to reduce reliance on regional power infrastructure in case of a hazard- caused power outage.
 Action S 1.2223: Public Safety Outreach. Develop a public safety education program to increase public awareness of potential hazards, City’s emergency readiness and response program, and evacuation routes. Target public education programs to segments of the community that are most vulnerable to hazards and safety risks.
 Action S 1. 2324: Community Training. Collaborate with SMC Fire to provide emergency preparedness trainings to maintain and expand existing Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs).
 Action S 1.2425: Emergency Infrastructure and Equipment. Establish systems in place to ensure that traffic lights at major intersections, communications and radio infrastructure, and other critical infrastructure continues to function in the event of a localized power outage. Repair any damaged sets of infrastructure or equipment as needed to continue City operations.  Action S 1.2627: Response Time Study. Conduct a Response Time Study to provide a data-driven understanding of how future roadway safety improvements could impact emergency response times and use this information to adjust proposed roadway improvements as needed.  Action S 1.28: Future Emergency Needs. Assess future emergency service needs during each update to the Safety Element.
 Action S 1.2729: Emergency Notification System. Develop an emergency notification system (e.g. SMC Alert and Nixle) for flood-prone neighborhoods and businesses before, during, and after a climate hazard event and assist in their evacuation and other support activities. This STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-36 JANUARY 2024
includes coordination with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) on its early flood warning notification system.  Goal S-54: Maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland fires.  Policy S 54.12: Secondary Access. Explore secondary means of ingress and egress in areas with evacuation constraints, as shown in Figure S-2, Evacuation-Constrained Areas, for existing subdivisions or developments of 30 units or more within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.  Policy S54.13: Emergency Access. Require that roads, driveways, and other clearances around structures are located and designed to ensure emergency access.  Policy S 54.14: Emergency Services. Work with SMC Fire to provide fire prevention, protection, and emergency preparedness services that adequately protect residents, employees, visitors, and structures from fire and fire-related emergencies.

The following General Plan goal, policies, and actions referenced in impa ct discussion WILD-2 on pages

4.18-28 to 4.18-31 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy S 1.2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Incorporate by reference the San Mateo County Multi-jJurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2021, along with any future updates or amendments, into this Safety Element in accordance with Government Code section 65302.6.  Goal S-54: Maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland fires.  Policy 54.1: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Avoid new residential development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as shown on Figure S-14, or the most current data available from CAL FIRE. Redevelopment or reconstruction of existing structures is allowed. Coordinate with San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMC Fire) to ensure new construction of buildings or infrastructure within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), as shown on Figures S-12 and S-13 or the most current data available from CAL FIRE, are in full compliance with meet or exceed applicable State and local regulations and meet the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations for road ingress and egress, fire equipment access, and adequate water supply.
 Policy S 54.2: Reconstruction of Development. Require reconstruction projects or significant retrofits in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and the Wildland-Urban Interface, as shown on Figures S- 12 and S-13 or the most current data available from CAL FIRE, to be consistent with the California Building Standards Code, California Fire Code, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations.
 Policy S 54.3: Wildland Fire Protection. Require all development in and adjacent to designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland-Urban Interface to prepare a fire protection plan for review and approval by SMC Fire prior to issuance of building permits and to provide access and defensible space in accordance with California codes and local ordinances.  Policy S 54.9: Land Use Management for Fire Risks. Maintain all City-owned public lands and work with private landowners and FIRE SAFE San Mateo County to reduce fuel loads, establish appropriately placed fire breaks/defensible space, require long-term maintenance of fire hazard STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-37
reduction projects, and educate all property owners in the city on proper landscape maintenance and firescaping standards to reduce the risk of fire hazards.  Policy S 54.11: Fire Safe Roads. Coordinate with SMC Fire to evaluate new development or significant retrofits that have access on roadways that do not meet fire-safe road and vegetation standards within the Wildfire-Urban Interface and/or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and ensure that road standards and vegetation management occurs and is maintained.  Action S 54.15: Tree Maintenance. Collaborate with SMC Fire to maintain City-owned trees in a manner that does not contribute to fire danger, in accordance with current bBest mManagement pPractices (BMPs).
 Action S 54.16: Fire-Safe Education. Work with SMC Fire and seek funding to develop a fire-safe education program that provides information and awareness to community members about defensive space, fire-resistant landscaping and construction, evacuation preparation, and other wildfire education topics.
 Action S 54.18: Vegetation Management on City-Owned Land. Coordinate with SMC Fire to continue conducting and providing long-term maintenance of vegetation management projects in City-owned parks and open spaces to prevent wildfire ignition and spread.  Action S 54.19: Reevaluation of Development Standards. Reevaluate development standards for wildfire risk areas following major wildfire events and apply updated standards as needed to maintain high levels of wildfire protection.
 Action S 54.20: Vegetation Management. Coordinate with the SMC Fire and the FIRE SAFE San Mateo County to obtain funding for and conduct vegetation and fuel modification or management.

The following General Plan goal and policy referenced in impact discussion WILD-3 on pages 4.18-32 to

4.18-33 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Goal S-54: Maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland fires.  Policy S 54.7: Peakload Water Supply. Ensure that the California Water Service Company and the Estero Municipal Improvement District provide and maintain a water supply and distribution system that provides an adequate static pressure to deliver the minimum fire hydrant flow to all areas of the city, except where a lesser flow is acceptable, as determined by SMC Fire.

The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions referenced in impa ct discussion WILD-4 on
pages 4.18-33 to 4.18-35 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:
 Policy LU 2.1: Development Intensity/Density. Regulate development density/intensity to recognize natural environmental constraints, such as floodplains, earthquake faults, debris flow areas and other hazards, availability of urban services, and transportation and circulation constraints.
 Goal S-3: Protect the community from unreasonable risk to life and property caused by flood hazards and sea level rise.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-38 JANUARY 2024
 Policy S 3.1: Development within Floodplains. Protect new development and substantial retrofits within a floodplain by requiring the lowest finish floor elevation to be three feet above the applicable floodwater elevation or by incorporating other flood-proofing measures consistent with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, OneShoreline guidance, the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance, and other City policy documents.  Action S 3.317: Flood Risk Mapping Data. Regularly update mapping data pertaining to the 100- year and 500-year floodplains, dams, and levee failure as information becomes available.  Action S 3.49: Community Rating System. Undertake efforts that increase the Explore establishment of a City's rating under FEMA’s Community Rating System, such as expanding and improving Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping capacity, developing a flood early warning system, and creating a Flood Emergency Action Plan.  Action S 3.510: Early Flood Warning. As feasible, Collaborate with OneShoreline to provide early flood warning for flood-prone areas of the city through collaboration with regional partners such as OneShoreline’s stream monitoring station and notification system.  Goal S-54: Maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland fires.  Policy S 54.4: Hillside Vegetation Stability. Stabilize, and as feasible re-vegetate, burned slopes following a wildfire event to reduce landslide and debris flows risk.

The second bullet point in impact discussion WILD-3 on page 4.18-32 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Fuel Breaks. As discussed in impact discussion WILD-2, the Safety (S) Element of the proposed General Plan includes Policies S 54.1 and S 54.9 which require development in and adjacent to designated wildland fire areas to provide defensible space and the City to establish appropriately placed fire breaks and defensible space on City-owned public lands.

CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES
The second bullet point under the “Noise” subheading on page 5-3 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Impact NOISE-64: Buildout under the proposed project is anticipated to result in unacceptable cumulative traffic noise within the EIR Study Area.

Section 5.4, Overview of Project Alternatives, be ginning on page 5-3 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

5.4 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

5.4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-39
explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The following is a discussion of alternatives that were considered and rejected, along with the reasons they were not included in the analysis.  Lower Growth Alternative. Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR describes the planning process that led to the development of General Plan 2040, and explains that from 2019 to 2022, community members and the City Council developed and evaluated three scenarios for the General Plan. As stated on pages 3- 7 to 3-8 of the Draft EIR, the Alternatives Evaluation Report published in January 2022 began the community engagement process to choose a preferred scenario for land use and circulation based on the relative benefits, trade-offs, potential impacts, and desired mix of growth and development of each alternative. This process led to the selection of the preferred scenario, which was created by mixing and matching different combinations of housing and commercial development in each Study Area for Genera l Plan 2040. The resulting preferred scenario that was selected by the City is the proposed project evaluated in this EIR and its buildout projections and project objectives are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

Two lower growth scenarios (referred to as Alternatives A and B in the Alternatives Evaluation Report) were considered and evaluated as part of this planning process. Due to the lower residential densities considered in these lower growth alternatives, they would be less likely to meet the project objective of identifying sufficient residential land to accommodate both current and future housing needs for people at all income levels. In addition, the lower densities would result in less concentrated growth and fewer residents within close proximity to transit, which would increase the City’s per-capita VMT (for both residents and workers) when compared to the proposed project.

These lower growth scenarios would reduce overall VMT, which could decrease the significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact identified for the proposed project; however, because these scenarios would increase VMT per capita, they would increase the project’s transportation impact. In addition, the lower growth scenarios could prevent the City’s ability to comply with future housing mandates, which would render these alternatives infeasible. Lastly, these scenarios were considered for their ability to reduce the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The proposed project’s air quality impacts are a result of the programmatic nature of the analysis in the EIR; the application of significance thresholds used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and the magnitude of development due to the proposed project being a long-term, citywide plan.

These impacts could not be avoided by a lower growth alternative that still allows enough development for the City to increase the amount and variety of housing to meet current and future needs. Therefore, lower growth alternatives were considered but rejected.  Wildfire Zone Development Prohibition Alternative. The City considered an alternative that would prohibit development within the very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), wildland -urban interface (WUI), and State Responsibility Area (SRA). As described on pages 4.18-31 and 4.18-36 of the Draft EIR, such a prohibition would be the only way to fully avoid Impact WILD-2 and Impact WILD-5, identified as significant and unavoidable for the proposed project. Page 4.8-31 of the Draft EIR states, “The majority of western San Mateo is in a VHFHSZ and/or the WUI. Prohibiting new development in this portion of San Mateo is not feasible or practical because the City has a responsibility to meet STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-40 JANUARY 2024
other, conflicting obligations, including increasing the number and type of housing available and allowing reconstruction of homes burned by wildfires.” Such a prohibition would disallow new development but would also disallow redevelopment and improvement projects on sites already developed in the VHFHSZ, WUI, and SRA. Such a prohibition would likely require the use of eminent domain. As described in the Draft EIR, such an alternative is infeasible and impractical; therefore, this alternative was rejected.

5.4.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
The heading for Section 5.4.1 on page 5-4 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

5.4.13 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Footnote b in Table 5-1 on page 5-4 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
b. Includes housing development required to achieve the City’s 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, plus a buffer. See Table 5-3, 2030 Development Projections Under the No Project Alternative. 2040 buildout under the No Project Alternative have has not been calculated, as the City’s existing General Plan has a horizon year of 2030 that would have to be updated to extend the buildout horizon past 2030. Overall, development under the current General Plan, as considered in the No Project Alternative, would be expected to be lower than the buildout analyzed for the proposed General Plan 2040.

The heading for Section 5.4.2 on page 5-4 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

5.4.24 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The second paragraph under Section 5.6.1 on page 5-18 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

As described in Chapter 4.11, Noise, buildout under the proposed project based on modeling conducted for this EIR shows an increase above acceptable levels over existing conditions along one roadway segment. The Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative would involve enhanced transportation demand management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle travel to a greater extent than under the proposed project. Specifically, it is assumed that this alternative would involve a new TDM program applicable to new development as well as existing residences, employees, and businesses, and may require individual developers to participate in a City-established TDM program focused on reducing vehicle trips. New TDM requirements may include a combination of the following, or similar, measures for employees and residents:
 Transit passes and subsidies
 E-bike subsidies
 Ride sharing subsidies
 Free bicycles
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-41
CHAPTER 6 CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
The second bullet point under the “Noise” subheading on page 6-2 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Impact NOISE-64: Buildout under the proposed project is anticipated to result in unacceptable cumulative traffic noise within the EIR Study Area.

APPENDICES
Appendix B, Projects Included in Buildout Projections, of the Draft EIR is hereby replaced with the version appended to this Final EIR titled Appendix B, REVISED Projects Included in Buildout Projections.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-42 JANUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.

PLACEWORKS 4-1
List of Commenters
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals. Letters are arranged by category, name, and date received. Each comment letter has been assigned a number, as indicated below. These letters are included in and responded to in Table 5-1, Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIR, in Chapter 5, Response to Comments, of this Final EIR. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix G, Comments Received on the Draft EIR, along with annotations that identify each individual comment number.

4.1 GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
GOV1 California Geological Survey, Brian Olson, September 21, 2023 GOV2 California Department of Transportation, Yunsheng Luo, September 25, 2023

4.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND

PRIVATE COMPANIES
ORG1 San Mateo Heritage Alliance, September 25, 2023
ORG2 Hillsdale Shopping Center, David Bohannon, September 25, 2023 ORG3 San Mateo Heritage Alliance, Laurie Hietter, November 1, 2023

4.3 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
PUB1 Rowan Paul, August 17, 2023
PUB2 Frances Souza, August 17, 2023
PUB3 Jerry Davis, September 11, 2023
PUB4 Francie Souza, September 11, 2023
PUB5 David Light, September 12, 2023
PUB6 Laurie Watanuki, September 12, 2023
PUB7 Michael Weinhauer, September 12, 2023
PUB8 Lisa Taner, September 18, 2023
PUB9 Keith Weber, September 19, 2023
PUB10 Lisa Maley, September 22, 2023
PUB11 Erika Gomez, September 23, 2023
PUB12 Rowan Paul, September 23, 2023
PUB13 Evan Powell, September 23, 2023
PUB14 Chris and Wayne Rango, September 24, 2023
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

LIST OF COMMENTERS
4-2 JANUARY 2024
PUB15 Dave Santos, September 24, 2023
PUB16 Karen Herrel, September 25, 2023
PUB17 Maxine Terner, September 25, 2023
PUB18 Naomi Ture, September 25, 2023
PUB19 Naomi Ture, September 25, 2023
PUB20 Mavridis, October 1, 2023
PUB21 Meg Spicer, October 8, 2023
PUB22 No Name, October 9, 2023
PUB23 Lisa Maley, October 12, 2023

4.4 PUBLIC HEARING ORAL COMMENTS
PH1 Public Comments at San Mateo Planning Commission, September 12, 2023

PLACEWORKS 5-1
Response to Comments
This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, each comment letter received during the public review period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix G, Comments Received on the Draft EIR, along with annotations that identify each individual comment number.

Responses to comments are provided in this chapter alongside the text of each corresponding comment. Letters are categorized by:
 Governmental Agencies
 Organizations
 Members of the Public
 Public Hearing Oral Comments
Letters are arranged by category, date received, and name. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response, and/or to a master response (described in Section 5.1, Master Responses). Where a response requires revisions to the Draft EIR, these revisions are shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. Table 5-1, Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIR, presents comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to each of those comments. Exhibits referenced in responses to comments are included in the commenter’s original comment letter and are included in Appendix G, Comments Received on the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.

All comments included in this document are formally acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

5.1 MASTER RESPONSES
Certain topics raised by commenters require a lengthy response, and certain topics addressed in this Final EIR require a detailed explanation. In addition, certain topics were raised repeatedly, albeit in slightly different forms, in comments on the Draft EIR. To minimize duplication in responses and to provide a more comprehensive discussion, “master responses” have been prepared for some of these issues. Responses to individual comments reference these master responses as appropriate. A particular master response may provide more information than requested by any individual comment. Conversely, the master response may not provide a complete response to a given comment, and additional information may be contained in the individual response to that comment. Master responses in this Final EIR address the following issues:

1. Standards for Responses to Comments

2. Roadway Classifications

3. Lower Growth Alternative
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-2 JANUARY 2024
MASTER RESPONSE 1: STANDARDS FOR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

PROJECT MERITS
Often during review of an EIR, the public raises issues that relate to qualities of the project itself or the project’s community consequences or benefits, personal wellbeing and quality of life, and economic or financial issues (referred to here as “project merits”), rather than the environmental analyses or impacts and mitigations raised in the EIR. However, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects, the Draft EIR is not meant to address these project merits; rather, the purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR is to fully analyze and mitigate the project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment to the extent feasible.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, and Section 15132, Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report, a Final EIR must include a response to comments on the Draft EIR pertaining to environmental issues analyzed under CEQA. Several of the comments provided in response to the Draft EIR express an opinion for or against the proposed project, but do not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. Rather, these opinions relate to the merits of the project.

Lead agency review of environmental issues and project merits are both important in the decision of what action to take on a project, and both are considered in the decision-making process for a project.

However, as part of the environmental review process, a lead agency is only required by CEQA to respond to environmental issues that are raised. The City will hold public hearings to consider action on the merits of the proposed project for adoption. The City will consider both the EIR and project merit issues that have been raised prior to any action to adopt the proposed project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), Focus of Review, provides direction for parties reviewing and providing comment on a Draft EIR, as follows:

In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.

When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), the City is not required to respond to comments that express an opinion about the project merits, but do not relate to environmental issues covered in the Draft EIR. Although such opinions and comments on the project merits received as part of the EIR process do not require responses in the EIR, as previously noted, they do provide important STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-3
input to the process of reviewing the project overall. Therefore, merits and opinion-based comment letters are included in the EIR to be available for consideration by the City’s decision makers at the merits stage of the project. City decision makers may consider these letters and issues as part of their deliberations on the merits of the project and whether to adopt, modify, or disapprove the project.

SPECULATION WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Some commenters assert or request that impacts should be considered significant but fail to provide substantial evidence in support of their assertion. Predicting the project’s physical impacts on the environment without substantial evidence based on facts to support the analysis would require a level of speculation that is inappropriate for an EIR.

CEQA Section 21082.2(a), Significant Effect on Environment; Determination; Environmental Impact Report Preparation, requires that the lead agency “shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(a), Substantial Evidence, clarifies that “‘substantial evidence’… means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment, does not constitute substantial evidence.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(b) goes on to state that “substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” Where there are no facts available to substantiate a commenter’s assertion that the physical environment could ultimately be significantly impacted as a result of the project, the City, acting as the lead agency, is not required to analyze that effect, nor to mitigate for that effect. Section 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises reviewers that comments should be accompanied by factual support:

Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved for the discretion of the lead agency based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

The analysis of the Draft EIR is based on scientific and factual data, which has been reviewed by the lead agency and reflects its independent judgment and conclusions. CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in an EIR. As Section 15151, Standards for Adequacy of an EIR, of the CEQA Guidelines states, even “[d]isagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, Speculation, provides that:

If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-4 JANUARY 2024

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
During the review period for the Draft EIR, members of the public submitted comments that requested additional analysis, mitigation measures, or revisions that are not provided in this Final EIR for reasons more specifically addressed in the individual comments. As described previously, Section 15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.

Section 15003 of the CEQA Guidelines, Policies, also explains the emphasis of CEQA on good-faith efforts at full disclosure rather than technical perfection:
(i) CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692). (j) CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of U.C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 and Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553).

Sections 15204(a) and 15003 reflect judicial interpretation of CEQA. Under CEQA, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues, and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, so long as a good-faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

MASTER RESPONSE 2: ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
Multiple comments expressed concerns regarding roadway classifications, specifically regarding Figure

4.15-1, Proposed Street Classification, in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, which shows 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue classified as arterials.

The City is not proposing any changes to roadway classifications as part of the General Plan Update, and the street classifications mapped in the figure are determined by Caltrans, not the City. Therefore, Figure 4.15-1 has been retitled as Existing Street Classification, as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. Whereas the version of Figure 4.15-1 that appeared in the Draft EIR included four classifications (freeway, arterial, collector, and local), the revised map included in this Final EIR includes five classifications that currently exist within the city (freeway or expressway, principal arterial, minor arterial, major collector, and local). Chapter 3 of this Final EIR also provides revisions to Chapter

4.15 of the Draft EIR regarding the definitions and traffic volumes for these classifications. As shown on the revised version of Figure 4.15-1 in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue are mapped as minor arterials, which carry annual average daily traffic volumes between 3,000 and 14,000 trips.

Comments also expressed concerns regarding traffic calming and questioned whether roadway classifications conflict with desired traffic-calming improvements for certain roadways. Following the publication of the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan 2040, a new action has been added to the proposed General Plan to explore whether traffic calming should be provided on neighborhood streets designated as minor arterials and collectors:

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-5
Action C 6.9 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Evaluate whether updates are needed to the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to determine if the program should be expanded to include collectors and minor arterials.

Further, an additional action has been added to the proposed General Plan based on the City’s intention for its Complete Streets Plan to be used for roadway classifications within the city:

Action C 6.13 Street Classification Update. Request that Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration update their functional roadway classifications based on the roadway network framework that will be defined by the Complete Streets Plan.

MASTER RESPONSE 3: LOWER GROWTH ALTERNATIVE
Several comments expressed concerns regarding the buildout projections for the proposed project and requested that the EIR include an analysis of a lower growth or “moderate growth” alternative. Some comments also state that, without such an alternative, the EIR fails to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. Further, some comments state that lower growth alternatives would lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project. As described in detail below, lower growth alternatives (apart from the No Project Alternative) were considered by the City but were rejected from detailed consideration in the Draft EIR because they would not meet the project objectives and would not reduce the project’s significant impacts.

Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.” Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, lower growth alternatives were considered by the City but rejected from detailed analysis.

The lower growth alternatives considered by the City were developed by the City as part of the planning process for the proposed project. Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR describes the planning process that led to the development of General Plan 2040, and explains that from 2019 to 2022, community members and the City Council developed and evaluated three scenarios for the General Plan. As stated on pages 3-7 to 3-8 of the Draft EIR, the Alternatives Evaluation Report published in January 2022 began the community engagement process to choose a preferred scenario for land use and circulation based on the relative benefits, trade-offs, potential impacts, and desired mix of growth and development of each alternative. This process led to the selection of the preferred scenario, which was created by mixing and matching different combinations of housing and commercial development in STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-6 JANUARY 2024
each Study Area for General Plan 2040. The resulting preferred scenario, selected by the City Council, based on community input, is the proposed project evaluated in this EIR and its buildout projections and project objectives are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Two lower growth scenarios (referred to as Alternatives A and B in the Alternatives Evaluation Report) were considered and evaluated as part of this planning process. Alternative A allowed for the smallest increase in residential densities and the lowest amount of new residential development; the Alternatives Evaluation Report concluded that it was unlikely to meet future State housing requirements. Alternative B would most likely be able to fulfill future State-mandated housing targets, but would have a smaller housing buffer compared to Alternative C. Based on the conclusions of the Alternatives Evaluation Report, both Alternatives A and B would be less likely than the proposed project to meet the project objective of identifying sufficient residential land to meet both current and future housing needs for people at all income levels. In addition, the lower residential densities would result in less concentrated growth and fewer residents within close proximity to transit, which would increase the City’s per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (for both residents and workers) when compared to the proposed project.

The lower growth scenarios would reduce overall VMT, which could decrease the significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact identified for the proposed project; however, because these scenarios would increase VMT per capita, they would increase the project’s transportation impact. In addition, the lower growth scenarios could prevent the City’s ability to meet future State housing requirements, which would render these alternatives infeasible. Lastly, these scenarios were considered for their ability to reduce the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The proposed project’s air quality impacts are a result of the programmatic nature of the analysis in the EIR; the application of significance thresholds used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); and the magnitude of development due to the proposed project being a long-term, citywide plan. These impacts could not be avoided by a lower growth alternative that still allows enough development for the city to meet current and future housing needs. Therefore, the lower growth alternatives were considered but rejected.

However, the Draft EIR does analyze the No Project Alternative, under which the current General Plan 2030 would remain in place, which represents an alternative with a lower amount of growth than the proposed project. Some comments incorrectly indicate that the No Project Alternative represents a “no growth” alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the City’s existing General Plan would remain in place and future growth would be able to occur under existing land use designations and policies. Rather than representing a zero-growth scenario, as shown in Table 5-1, Development Projections for the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives, the No Project Alternative is expected to result in 53,704 total housing units by 2030, an increase of 9,934 units when compared to baseline conditions of 43,770 existing housing units, and 65,300 jobs by 2030, an increase of 2,900 jobs compared to baseline conditions of 62,400 jobs. As stated on page 5-4 of the Draft EIR, “2040 buildout under the No Project Alternative [has] not been calculated, as the City’s existing General Plan has a horizon year of 2030 that would have to be updated to extend the buildout horizon past 2030. Overall, development under the current General Plan, as considered in the No Project Alternative, would be expected to be lower than the buildout analyzed for the proposed General Plan 2040.” While buildout for 2040 under the existing General Plan has not been calculated, it can reasonably be expected to be between the 2030 levels described above and the 2040 buildout analyzed for the proposed project.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-7
During the public review period for Draft General Plan 2040 and the Draft EIR, the City Council directed changes to the proposed land use designations in the proposed General Plan, including removal of the proposed Residential High II and Mixed-Use High II land use designations, reducing the proposed height limits and intensities for the Office land use designations, and reducing the proposed heights and densities along some study area edges to support transitions between high and low density areas. These changes to the proposed land use map have the effect of reducing the total residential and commercial buildout potential allowed under the proposed General Plan when compared to the proposed project analyzed in this EIR. Buildout with these changes to the land use map is expected to result in approximately:
 19,760 net new housing units by 2040, compared to 21,410 under the proposed project;  15,000 net new jobs by 2040, compared to 16,920 under the proposed project; and  3,186,000 square feet of net new non-residential floor area, compared to 4,325,000 square feet under the proposed project.

The reduction in residential and non-residential development capacity does not affect the impact conclusions in this EIR as it does not increase the severity of any impacts identified in the EIR, generate any new impacts, or create the need for any new mitigation measures or project alternatives. Therefore, the reduced buildout does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR because it does not constitute “significant new information” under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis in this EIR remains based on the buildout projections presented in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

As such, this EIR sets a conservative maximum envelope analyzed for proposed General Plan 2040.

5.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Table 5-1 presents comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to each of those comments.

Letters are arranged by date received. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. Where a response requires revisions to the Draft EIR, these revisions are shown in Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.

Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix G, Comments Received on the Draft EIR, along with annotations that identify each individual comment number. Table 5-1 includes figures and tables included in the comment letters at a reduced image resolution. To view the images at full resolution, please refer to the original comment letters in Appendix G.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-8 JANUARY 2024
TABLE 5-1 R ESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR Comment # Comment Response
Governmental Agencies
GOV1 9/1/2023 Brian Olson, California Geological Survey GOV1-1 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:

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses GOV1-2 through GOV1-8.

GOV1-2 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 comment asserts that the liquefaction and slope failure potential map in the Draft EIR is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Hazard Viewer Map and
represents rainfall-induced landslides and not earthquake- induced landslides. The information represented in Figure 4.6- 4, Seismic Hazard Zones, in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR was provided by the City of San Mateo, not ABAG, and represents both rainfall- and earthquake-induced landslides.

GOV1-3 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
The comment requests supplemental information based on
the official California Geological Survey (CGS) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation for liquefaction and
earthquake-induced landslides rather than ABAG. As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter

4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR has been revised to include a discussion on the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, as well as the new Figure 4.6-5, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

GOV1-4 CGS maps and data are available here:
https://maps-cnra-
cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-
hazards-programliquefaction-zones-1/about
https://maps-cnra-
cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-
hazards-programlandslide-zones-doc-hosted/about
The comment provides sources for CGS maps and data. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no response is warranted.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-9
Comment # Comment Response
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehous e/index.html?map=regulatorymaps
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

GOV1-5 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.

The comment provides information on the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is described in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, page 4.6-2, of the Draft EIR.

Future development under the proposed project within
seismic hazard zones would be required to comply with
federal and state regulations, including the requirement for a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard prior to project approval and disclosure at the time of sale that the property lies within such a zone. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

GOV1-6 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".

CEQA requires the analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment; therefore, the impact of existing radon potential to future development is not within the purview of the CEQA. Nevertheless, pursuant to the California Civil Code, sellers of real property containing up to four residential units are required to complete a disclosure form indicating the presence of all environmental hazards, including radon gas, formaldehyde, and mold, that are known to the seller. Potential future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the National Indoor Radon Abatement Act and the California Health and Safety Code to meet the standard of less than 4 picocuries/liter (pCi/L) of radon in air.

GOV1-7 The City should provide a discussion of both the health hazards and geologic sources of radon 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".

Please see Response GOV1-6 regarding radon hazards.

GOV1-8 CGS maps and data are available here:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/radon/app/
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
5-10 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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
GOV2 9/25/2023 Yunsheng Luo, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
GOV2-1 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.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses GOV2-2 through GOV2-11.

GOV2-2 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.

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

GOV2-3 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).

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

GOV2-4 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 The comment endorses the methodology utilized in the Draft EIR for VMT analysis and supports the conclusions and
adequacy of the analysis; 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 5-11
Comment # Comment Response
Analysis guidelines. Per the VMT analysis in the DEIR, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT
reduction goals.

GOV2-5 Page 4.15-16, “the proposed project is generally consistent with and would not 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.

The comment requests strengthening the General Plan
language to advance the stated transportation goals of Plan Bay Area and the State. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

GOV2-6 Caltrans encourages policies and programs related to land use and circulation that increase density, improve regional accessibility, and reduce VMT. The City may also consider the following strategies to reduce VMT, in addition to the priority strategies identified in Table 4.7-3:

- Real-time transit information system
- Transit subsidies
- Unbundled parking requirement from housing
developments
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).

The recommended strategies are noted and are implemented by some projects as TDM measures. The comment does not
address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR;
therefore, no further response is warranted.

GOV2-7 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.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR has been revised to include discussion on the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian and Bike Plans.

GOV2-8 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- As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the updated Caltrans Director's Policy 37.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-12 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
motorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.

GOV2-9 Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning
Please review and include the reference to the current
California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR.

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.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR has been revised to include discussion on the California Transportation Plan.

GOV2-10 Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA)
Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during
construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

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

GOV2-11 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 [email protected].

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses GOV2-2 through GOV2-10.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-13
Comment # Comment Response
Organizations
ORG1 9/5/2023 San Mateo Heritage Alliance
ORG1-1 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:

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses ORG1-2 through ORG1-20.

ORG1-2 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.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR has been revised to discuss the status of the requests to list the Baywood District and Yoshiko Yamanouchi House in the
National Register with the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, in late 2023 the Yoshika Yamanouchi House was added to the National and
California Registers.

ORG1-3 2. The impact discussion is missing an analysis of the project effects on historic districts.

The proposed project's impact on historic resources is
discussed in impact discussion CULT-1, in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, which concludes that the
proposed project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. As detailed in Chapter 4.4, page 4.4-10, of the Draft EIR, the types of cultural resources that meet the definition of historical resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 generally consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant for their traditional, cultural, and/or historical associations.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-14 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
ORG1-4 3. The impact conclusion is not supported by the impact analysis.

The comment is noted. The commenter does not explain why, in the opinion of the commenter, the impact conclusion of the Draft EIR is not supported by the impact analysis. Therefore, a more detailed response cannot be provided.

ORG1-5 4. General Plan policies are not reliable mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the significant adverse impacts that may be caused by the project. The City of San Mateo has failed to comply with its General Plan policies regarding historic resources for the past 25+ years.

The comment is noted. The commenter does not explain why, in the opinion of the commenter, the City has a history of noncompliance with General Plan policies. Regarding the commenter's statement that General Plan policies are not reliable mitigation measures, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b), General Plan policies can be considered mitigation measures and the annual report on general plan status, required pursuant to the Government Code, is
considered a reporting program for adoption of a general plan.

ORG1-6 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.

The opinion of the commenter is noted. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City determined that the proposed project could result in
potentially significant environmental impacts and that a program EIR would be required. Once the program EIR has been certified, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether additional CEQA review is needed. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) and CEQA streamlining provisions, 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. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires that the lead agency adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to CEQA Section 21081. Such a program is intended to ensure the
implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The MMRP for the proposed project is included as Appendix H, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, of this Final EIR.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-15
Comment # Comment Response
Furthermore, the proposed project includes General Plan policies and actions that would serve to protect historic resources. Proposed General Plan Policy CD 5.2, Historic Preservation, encourages the identification and preservation of historic resources. Proposed Policy CD 5.7, Demolition Alternatives, would require an applicant to submit alternatives to preserve a historic resource as part of any planning application that proposed full demolition. Proposed Action CD

5.8, Historic Preservation Ordinance, requires an update to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and proposed Action CD

5.12, Historic Resources Design Standards, would create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts.

ORG1-7 We offer the following comments on the Draft EIR.

4.4 Cultural Resources

4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions
p. 4.4-9, p
ara. 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 5th Avenue.

The City received the Baywood Historic Asset Analysis
(Brandi 2022) in April 2022. This report identifies the historic context of the Baywood neighborhood, the boundary of the Baywood Historic District, and the criteria under which the Historic District is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This report should be referenced in the EIR.

Please see Response ORG1-2 regarding the added discussion of the status of the requests to list the Baywood District and Yoshiko Yamanouchi House in the National Register with the California OHP to the Draft EIR.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-16 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
In addition, San Mateo Heritage Alliance is submitting an 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.

ORG1-8 4.4.4.1 Regulatory Framework
The discussions of cultural resource regulations does not include the regulatory framework for historic districts. The treatment of historic districts may be different than the treatment of individual historic properties. It is important to understand the regulatory framework for districts because the City has four historic districts; two identified as part of the 1989 Historic Building Survey, the Baywood Historic District, and the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District.

Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, page 4.4-6, of the Draft EIR, discusses the preservation and maintenance of the city's historic structures and the Downtown Historic District, as required by San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter

27.66, Historic Preservation. Local standards and ordinances are not yet established for other districts and individual development projects within those districts are reviewed for environmental impacts during the planning process.

ORG1-9 CULT 1:

Thank you for acknowledging the potential impact of
incompatible new buildings adjacent to historic buildings or districts. The City’s practice has been to only address the direct effects of the project on historic resources. The impact of new development on the Downtown Historic
District has not been analyzed or mitigated (e.g.,
Prometheus building at the former Trag’s site).

Please see Response ORG1-3 regarding what is considered a historic resource under CEQA. Furthermore, as stated in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, page 4.4-13, of the Draft EIR, CEQA would require that future potential projects permitted under the proposed project with the potential to significantly impact historical resources be subject to project-level CEQA review wherein the future project’s potential to affect the significance of a surrounding historical resource would be evaluated and mitigated to the extent feasible.

ORG1-10 p. 4.4-11, para. 2 states:

Please see Response ORG1-2 regarding the added discussion of the status of the requests to list the Baywood District and STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-17
Comment # Comment Response
“properties in the EIR Study Area that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National and California Registers would be categorized as historic
resources even if they are not formally landmarked by the City.”

This statement cannot be relied upon because the City has not followed these procedures. The City did not include the Baywood or Yamanouchi districts in this EIR. The City
disregarded the Baywood historic district report (Brandi 2022) that outlined the boundaries of the district and
identified Baywood as an eligible historic district, as well as a memo that indicated the property was a contributor to the district. The City did not treat the property as a historic resource and permitted demolition of the property without conducting the appropriate CEQA review.

Yoshiko Yamanouchi House in the National Register with OHP to the Draft EIR, and Response ORG1-9 regarding what is considered a historic resource under CEQA and requires
further CEQA review.

ORG1-11 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 currently treats contributors to the Downtown
Historic District as historic resources. This definition of historic resources only include districts. The City Historic Resources Code, which only applies to the Downtown
Historic District currently states:

27.66.040 CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES.
(a) City
-wid
e. All exterior modifications of individually
eligible and contributor buildings (e.g., exterior building 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
5-18 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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.

ORG1-12 Impacts to Historic Districts
The impact analysis should address the potential for direct and indirect significant effects on eligible historic districts and their contexts, especially for areas that have not yet been fully surveyed. The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District could be adversely affected by the proposed project, including increased traffic and the reconstruction of the 3rd/4th Avenue Interchange. Please revise the analysis to include an analysis of the impacts on the historic district.

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.

Please see Response ORG1-2 regarding the added discussion of the status of the requests to list the Baywood District and Yoshiko Yamanouchi House in the National Register with OHP to the Draft EIR, and Response ORG1-9 regarding what is considered a historic resource under CEQA and requires
further CEQA review. Furthermore, proposed General Plan Policy CD 5.2, Historic Preservation, requires the City to actively identify and preserve concentrations of historic resources.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-19
Comment # Comment Response
ORG1-13 General Plan policies are not a reliable means of mitigating potential significant adverse impacts to historic resources because the City fails to comply with its own policies.  The City of San Mateo has for 13 years disregarded its adopted General Plan policies regarding historic resources.  The City has failed to comply with current General Plan policy C/OS 8.2 Historic Districts.

The policy requires the City to “Consider the protections of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.” and “In consideration of future historic districts, specific regulations to maintain historic character shall be
developed.” The City continues to disregard this policy by refusing to acknowledge identified eligible historic districts and permitting demolition of historic resources to occur unabated and unaffected by its General Plan policies.
 The City has failed to comply with current General Plan policy C/OS 8.4 Inventory
Maintenance. This policy directs the City to “Establish and maintain and inventory
architecturally, culturally and historically significant structures and sites.” It also warns that “without
maintenance, the inventory becomes unreliable and
unusable.” For 34 years the City has failed to maintain or update the 1989 Historic Building Survey resulting in the continual and unabated loss of historic resources.

Please see Response PUB7-4 regarding the City's intent to implement proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

The City evaluates discretionary projects for General Plan consistency, including with existing General Plan Policy C/OS

8.2. The statements made by the commenter are their
opinion, but are not supported by substantial evidence.

The City implements existing General Plan Policy C/OS 8.4 by maintaining an inventory of historic resources through historic resource evaluations prepared in consultation with a qualified architectural historian. These actions are required during the entitlement process for projects of structures 50 years or older that were not previously surveyed.

Please also see Response ORG1-5 regarding General Plan
policies as mitigation measures.

ORG1-14 Policy CD 5.7: Demolition Alternatives
Please add the requirement to identify demolition
alternatives for contributors to a historic district.

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

ORG1-15 Action CD 5.8: Historic Resources Context Statements, Action CD 5.9: Historic Resources Survey, and Action CD

5.10: Historic Preservation Ordinance
These actions imply they will be conducted sequentially (Prepare neighborhood-specific historic context statements The comment references proposed General Plan Action CD

5.8, Historic Preservation Ordinance, Action CD 5.9, Historic Resources Context Statements, and Action CD 5.10, Historic Resources Survey, and requests updates to the Historic
Preservation Ordinance prior to historic context statements.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-20 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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).

The comment is noted, and the order of the actions has been updated to be considered for implementation earlier in the planning period. However, the comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

ORG1-16 p. 4.4-13 Significance without mitigation: Less than significant Conclusion.

The conclusion that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse impact on historical resources is
contrary to the discussion of the many ways the proposed project could have significant adverse impacts on historical resources:
 “Implementation of the proposed project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources by altering land use regulations that govern these properties or
surrounding sites.”
 “Potential impacts from future development on, or
adjacent to, historical resources could lead to
demolition…inappropriate modification…inappropriate new construction… incompatible new buildings.”
 “Development activities under the proposed project
therefore have the potential to be incompatible with
historical resources, which could be a significant impact.”  “If new development were to directly impact existing
resources, impacts on historical resources could be
significant.”

Based on the above statements from the impact discussion, the conclusion should be amended to read “the proposed
project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources.”
Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, page 4.4-13, of the Draft EIR, provides a discussion of how these potential impacts would be mitigated. This includes required compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws, as well as conformance with the identified proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions, including Policy CD 5.7, Demolition Alternatives, Action CD 5.8, Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Action CD 5.12, Historic Resources Design Standards. While conformance with the
Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would normally mitigate impacts to a less-than- significant level under CEQA, the proposed project is a program-level document, and specifics related to future individual projects are not known, so the proposed project assumes conformance with these Standards. CEQA requires further project-level environmental review to evaluate and mitigate the impact of future projects on historical resources.

Therefore, the conclusion that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on historical resources is accurate.

ORG1-17 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not a reliable means of mitigating potential significant adverse impacts to historic resources.

CEQA does not prevent demolition of historic resources. The Please see Response ORG1-6 and Response ORG1-16
regarding further CEQA review and implementation of
mitigation measures.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-21
Comment # Comment Response
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) sta
tes:

“Under CEQA, conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would normally mitigate impacts to a less-tha
n-sign
ificant
level. Because the proposed General Plan is a program level document, it is not possible to determine whether individual projects under the proposed project would be able to
conform with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. … The requirement for subsequent CEQA review, pursuant to state law, would minimize the potential for new
development to indirectly affect the significance of existing historical resources to the maximum extent practicable.”

This statement suggests that some significant impacts may not be mitigated through compliance with the Secretary of Interiorʹs Standards or through CEQA review. If no additional mitigation is imposed the project could result in significant unavoidable adverse effects. Additional mitigation measures should be presented.

ORG1-18 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.

The comment asserts that the Draft EIR needs to be
recirculated because the impact analysis is incomplete and new mitigation measures are required. Please see Responses ORG1-2 through ORG 1-17 above regarding the Draft EIR's impact analysis of historical resources and required
mitigations and further CEQA review. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5, "significant new information" requiring recirculation can include: a new significant
environmental impact that would result from the project or from new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; substantial increase of the severity of an environmental impact that would result unless mitigation measures are STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-22 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure
considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and
comment were precluded. Because the revisions shown in
Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR do not constitute as "significant new information," recirculation is not required.

ORG1-19 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 st
ory 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.

The comment asserts that the cumulative cultural resources impact analysis is lacking discussion of historic resources lost through development to date. The comment refers to events that have occurred in the past and are part of the baseline condition, rather than effects of the proposed project or cumulative projects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the proposed project. therefore, discussion of historic buildings and contributors modified or demolished to date is not required.

ORG1-20 I look forward to reviewing the revised Draft EIR with the missing analyses and mitigation measures.

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses ORG1-2 through ORG1-19.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-23
Comment # Comment Response
ORG2 9/25/2023 David Bohannon, Hillsdale Shopping Center ORG2-1 On behalf of HSC Property Owner LLC, the owners of the Hillsdale Shopping Center and surrounding properties
(Owners), we appreciate the opportunity to submit
comments on the Strive San Mateo General Plan Update
(GPU) and Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR).

As you may know, the Owners have embarked on a process
to collect community input to reimagine the Hillsdale
Shopping Center for its next evolution - from a shopping center into a great neighborhood with retail, homes,
supporting commercial development and more. As part of
this process, our team has reviewed the GPU and DEIR and supports the City's goals and efforts in the GPU. In the spirit of collaboration, the Owners wish to submit the following comments for consideration on both the GPU and DEIR.

Further, we request that these comments are considered in the implementation of the GPU, i.e., through zoning
amendments or otherwise.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses ORG2-2 through ORG2-5.

ORG2-2 GPU

1. Land Use Policy 6.2 [Hillsdale Shopping Center] - This policy allows redevelopment of the Hillsdale Shopping
Center for a "mix of uses, including commercial, retail, office, hotel, and residential uses." Given the market
demand for research and development (R&D) uses, and the fact that R&D uses can provide important job generating uses that have the added benefit of "in office" employment that energizes mixed use areas, we request that this policy explicitly identifies that R&D uses are permitted. We also request that R&D is explicitly allowed in the Mixed Use designations.

2. Land Use Table LU-1 [Land Use Designations] - We note that the new designations identify height limitations by stories rather than building height. We request discussion of The comment requests various updates to the proposed
General Plan 2040 and its policies and actions. 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
5-24 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
how these story limitations will be implemented in the
implementing zoning. We'd like to ensure that if/when
height is codified in feet, that it does not cause any
surprises. We note that the actual height can vary
depending on preferred ceiling heights for varying uses.

3. Circulation (new policy/action suggestion] - Consistent with efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
articulated in the GPU (for example, Action C 2.3 [Education and Outreach]: "pursue education for developers and
employees about programs and strategies to reduce VMT,
parking demand, and the resulting benefits" and Policy C 6. 7 [Capital Improvement Program]: "Prioritize improvements that increase person throughput in project prioritization to reduce VMT"), we request the City take action to
incorporate multi-modal improvements into the Capital
Improvement Program so that developer-funded transit,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements will earn Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) credits based on
Multimodal Level of Service criteria. We note that this is consistent with Zoning Code Section 27.13.090 which grants credits for improvements that are identified in the
Transportation Improvement Fee Technical Report. This is an important step in implementing the transition from
automobile focused improvements to multi-modal
improvements.

4. Circulation (new policy/action suggestion] - We
recommend that the General Plan reflects and expands
policies in transit oriented plans, including the Rail Corridor Plan, that require applicants for new developments within one half mile of a major transit station prepare a parking demand study, rather than impose a specific parking ratio, in recognition of access to mass transit. We recommend that this policy is reflected in the GPU to ensure consistent implementation in transit oriented plans. We also note that STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-25
Comment # Comment Response
this action would be consistent with the intent behind AB 2097, which largely eliminates parking requirements for projects in proximity to major transit.

5. Conservation Open Space Policy 7.2 (Acreage Standards] - This policy is to "[a]quire or accept for dedication two acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents." We note that this standard is highly land consumptive and places a heavy burden on development. If implemented
conservatively, it can result in the loss of residential units, which are sorely needed to meet RHNA targets. We have a number of suggestions to make this policy feasible.

a. We request that a broad scope of open space is accepted, including plazas, paseos, parklets, trails, courtyards and amenity terraces. We understand that this is consistent with past practice.
b. We request that developer funded park improvements
that are included in the Parks Master Plan continue to
receive credits from park fees.
c. Finally, we recommend that this policy is implemented in co
nsideration of park spaces provided in the same service area. For example, if ample parks have been provided in excess of the intended ratio in one service area, that should be considered in relation to other projects in the same service area.

6. Public Safety Facilities 4.3 [Building Electrification] -This policy is to "[r]require electrification for new building stock and reduce fossil fuel usage for existing building stock at the time of building alteration." We suggest that a feasibility standard is considered and that exceptions are allowed for affordable housing, commercial kitchens and R&D uses. An electrification requirement imposed on alterations to
existing buildings could inhibit the ability and interest in altering existing uses. We anticipate that the alteration and STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-26 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
preservation of existing uses, particularly affordable
housing, would be encouraged and suggest that feasibility is considered in relation to an existing building alteration project We understand that the San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission is currently meeting to
discuss and collect and discuss stakeholder input on the "Electrify San Mateo - Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy." In particular, we understand the Commission is seeking input on the impacts of new requirements on existing buildings. Accordingly, we suggest that policy leaves room for stakeholder input and implementation flexibility.

With respect to new uses, a natural gas prohibition on some uses, particularly R&D and commercial kitchens, would pose real limitations on the ability to develop and market such uses. We note that other Bay Area cities have provided for exemptions. For example, Santa Clara exempts 11L"
occupancies (which includes laboratories}, hotel laundries, commercial kitchens as well as other uses where there is "not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway".1 We recommend similar considerations in adopting electrification requirements.

7. Policy N 2.1 [ Noise Regulation] - This policy is to "[r]egulate noise in San Mateo to prohibit noise that is annoying or injurious to community members." We would
like to ensure that there will still be an opportunity to request construction noise exceptions, pursuant to a City process, for limited periods of time.

8. Policy N 2.2: (Minimize Noise Impacts] - This policy is to "(i]ncorporate necessary mitigation measures into new
development design to minimize short-term noise impacts.

Determine whether new development has the potential to
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-27
Comment # Comment Response
result in a significant noise impact on existing development based on the following standards. Impacts will be analyzed based on long-term operational noise increases at the
sensitive receptor property line, or new uses that generate noise levels at the sensitive receptor property line [above 5 dBA, with certain other additional requirements]." We
suggest that existing ambient noise levels are considered in the implementation of exterior noise standards. For
example, in one such example, 2 in the event the ambient noise level exceeds the otherwise specified noise standards, an "adjusted ambient noise level" is applied as the noise standard. In cases where the noise standard is adjusted due to a high ambient noise level, the noise standard shall not exceed the "adjusted ambient noise level," or 70 dB(A), whichever is less. In cases where the ambient noise level is already greater than 70 dB(A}, the ambient noise level is applied as the noise standard. We request a similar
consideration and adjustments based on existing ambient noise levels.

9. Policy N 2.4: (Traffic Noise] - This policy is to "[r]ecognize projected increases in ambient noise levels resulting from future traffic increases, as shown on Figure N- 2. Promote reduced traffic speeds and the installation of noise barriers or other methods to reduce traffic noise along highways and high volume roadways where noise-sensitive land uses
(listed in Table N-1} [of the proposed General Plan] are adversely impacted by excessive noise levels (60 dBA [Ldn] or above)." We suggest that feasibility is considered when implementing this policy. There may be some instances
when it is not feasible to install noise barriers given right-of- way or property ownership constraints and, therefore,
suggest that this policy is implemented to the extent
feasible.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-28 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response

ORG2-3 DEIR

1. Project Description and Appendix B [Projects Included in Buildout Projections] -
We note that Table 3-1 [Proposed General Plan 2040
Buildout Projections]
identifies the "total net change" in development from
existing conditions. We request clarification on whether the site capacities assumed in the Buildout Projections reflect total capacity or net new capacity. It is well established under CEQA that using "net new" square footage reflects the true change in conditions from existing/prior uses to the ultimate/future use conditions (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15125, subd. (a)); Fat v County of Sacramento (2002) 97 CA4th
1270).

As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, on pages 3-19 and 3-20, of the Draft EIR, the buildout projections are not based on capacity, but rather the City's estimation of
"reasonably foreseeable" development that could occur over the buildout horizon. The projections do not presume that every parcel is developed to the maximum level allowed
under the General Plan. Table 3-1, Proposed General Plan 2040 Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR shows the projected net change for each category (i.e., households, housing units, population, and jobs) by area, as well as the total net change for the EIR Study Area and projected buildout in 2040.

ORG2-4 2. Wildfire - For the sake of accuracy, we note that Figure

4.18-5, "Potential Evacuation Routes," does not appear to show that 31st Avenue and 28th Avenue now connect under the Caltrain Tracks as a result of a recent grade separation project. These new road connections may provide additional Potential Evacuation Routes east of the Caltrain tracks.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Figure 4.18-5, Potential Evacuation Routes, in Chapter

4.18, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR has been revised to include 31st Avenue and 28th Avenue as additional evacuation routes.

ORG2-5 We thank you for your time and your consideration and your efforts on the GPU and DEIR.

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses ORG2-2 through ORG2-4.

ORG3 11/1/2023 Laurie Hietter, San Mateo Heritage Alliance ORG3-1 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:

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 5-29
Comment # Comment Response

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.

Pol
icy CD 5-3: Hi
storic Resources Definition. Define historic
resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts, and contributors to districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through
documentation in a historic resources report.

These changes will ensure continued protection of historic districts and the buildings that make the districts special.

Additional discussion is included in the attachment. Thank you for your consideration.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-30 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
ORG3-2 ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES POLICIES Definition of Historic Resources Should Include Contributors to Historic Districts
One of the goals of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is to preserve and protect historic resources and the contributor buildings in historic districts. The City of Redwood City, San Francisco, Portland, and many other cities protect
contributors in historic districts. The City’s current policies support protection of contributors in the Downtown and
Glazenwood Historic Districts. The General Plan should be clear on this policy.

Only the historic district is the historic resource subject to CEQA. Contributors do not qualify as historic resources or the consideration provided historic resources. The City has latitude to designate any important properties as historic resources. The Cityʹs policies in the current General Plan and the Historic Resources Preservation Code currently support the protection of contributors as historic resources, as do many cities.

The wording changes in the combined Policy CD 5.1 restrict the definition of historic resources and protection to only those resources that are individually eligible for listing on the State or National Register, which is a very high bar to achieve protection. There is no protection at all (even the minimal consideration of a CEQA analysis) for contributor buildings in a district until the point where so many buildings in the district are altered that the historic integrity is lost.

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 Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project, including the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would not result in significant impacts to historical resources. District contributors are included by default in the City’s two
designated historic districts (Downtown and Glazenwood) because the districts are considered a historic resource. Please see Response ORG1-9 regarding further CEQA review. Please also see Response ORG1-18 regarding recirculation.

Comments related to how contributors in historic districts should be addressed in the General Plan pertain to a policy decision, and do 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 5-31
Comment # Comment Response
Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as
designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.

The 2040 General Plan revised the definition of historic resources to remove the word “contributor:”
Pol
icy CD 5-3: Hi
storic 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.

Decid
ing to treat contributors as historic resources is a
policy decision. The language changes in the 2040 General Plan change the level of protection of buildings in historic districts, which is a significant impact not addressed in the Draft EIR. A new significant impact is cause for recirculation of the Draft EIR.

The goal to protect contributors to historic districts is consistent with the 2030 General Plan policy O/S 8.2:

C/OS 8.2: Historic Districts. Consider the protection of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.

ORG3-3 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
The comment is noted. Comments related to policy and action language in the proposed General Plan pertain to a policy decision, and do not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR. The proposed project is a program-level
document, and specifics related to future individual projects STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-32 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
General Plan policy is to protect a group of important
buildings. The new language in Policy CD 5.1/2 only protects groups of buildings that meet the definition of historic resources: those that are on or individually eligible for listing on the State or National Register.
2030 C/OS 8.1: Historic Preservation. Preserve, where
feasible, historic buildings as follows:
d. Historic building shall mean buildings which are on or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as
designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.
2040 Policy CD 5.2 Historic Resources Preservation. Actively identify and preserve concentrations of historic resources, which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of
exceptional architectural interest or integrity, when they meet national, State, or local criteria.

The definition of Historic Resources in the 2040 General Plan Chapter 10 includes contributors only in Downtown and
Glazenwood, and is a narrow definition of historic resources.

As stated by Joanna Jansen (Placeworks) at the October 30 City Council meeting, the definitions in the Glossary do not represent the policies.
2040 Chapter 10 Glossary: Historic Resource. A historic resource is a building, structure, site, or district that has one or more of the following characteristics:
 Listed in or determined to be on or individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources.
are not known, so the proposed project assumes conformance with applicable regulations, policies, and standards. CEQA requires further project-level environmental review to
evaluate and mitigate the impact of future projects on
historical resources. 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 5-33
Comment # Comment Response
 Identified as a Downtown Historic District or Glazenwood Historic District contributor building as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report.
 Determined to be eligible through documentation
contained in a historic resources report.

Zoning Code includes Contributors
The City of San Mateo Zoning Code sections 27.66.020
Applicability, 27.66.040 Conformance with Standards and Guidelines and 27.66.060 Demolition all treat contributors as historic resources and in the same way as individually eligible properties.

27.66.020 APPLICABILITY.
(a) Historic Buildings and Downtown Historic District. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all individually eligible buildings in the City, all individually eligible and contributor buildings within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and all structures located in the Downtown Historic District, as adopted by resolution of the City Council. (b) The City Council by resolution may add to the provisions of this chapter any building which it finds meets the criteria of contributing to the historic importance of downtown and the City. Such an action shall be based on National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources criteria and documented in a form consistent
with the City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey.
(c) Individually Eligible and Contributor Buildings. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "individually eligible building" shall mean those buildings as identified in the City of San Mateo General Plan. "Contributor building" shall mean those buildings identified as such and located within the Downtown Historic District as adopted by resolution of the City Council and identified in the City of San Mateo General Plan.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-34 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
(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 identified as such by resolution of the City Council or identified 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 STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-35
Comment # Comment Response
good news for the Baywood community. Many people are
looking to the City for clarification of what it means to be in a Historic District. Why can’t the City tell us now? Either contributors are protected or they are not. The current plan protects them. The slight changes in the wording in the 2040 General Plan removes the protection.

Demolition Policies
Policy CD 5.7 Demolition Alternatives. Require an applicant to submit alternatives to preserve a historic resource as part of any planning application that proposes full demolition.

Implement preservation methods unless health and safety requirements cannot be met or the City Council makes a
finding explaining the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of the proposed demolition outweigh the unavoidable adverse
impacts to the historic resource. If a designated historic resource cannot be preserved, require City approval before the demolition of a historic resource.

What is the definition of demolition for this policy? Leaving one wall is near total demolition. Requiring an alternatives analysis is a good idea. The staff should be empowered to valuate 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.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-36 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
Members of the Public
PUB1 8/17/2023 Rowan Paul
PUB1-1 Dear City of San Mateo,
I am very concerned about the changed building height
limits for new construction.

Already for our East 5th avenue house. We have lost
sunlight due to the new affordable housing building that came up with more floors than was in the original design that was approved. This is very concerning for the town if this continues.

The comment expresses concerns about the increasing
building heights. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB1-2 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.

The comment expresses concerns regarding increased density but does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR. As discussed in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would support programs to reduce overall vehicle usage and impacts would be less than
significant. Chapter 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR concludes that impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding area would only be significant and unavoidable for traffic noise along 1st Avenue west of B Street. Chapter 4.14, Public Services, and Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Services Systems, of the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would have less- than-significant impacts related to public services and utilities and service systems.

PUB1-3 San Mateo is not San Francisco or San Jose. I do not want it to turn into Redwood City which has turned into a
personality deficient overcrowded downtown with
significantly more crime than San Mateo.

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

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses PUB1-1 through PUB1-2.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-37
Comment # Comment Response
I am welcome to discussion.

Thank you
PUB2 8/17/2023 Frances Souza
PUB2-1 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.

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

PUB3 9/11/2023 Jerry Davis
PUB3-1 There are 10,210 vehicles a day on 5th Avenue that’s just too much traffic.

Whatsmore, [sic] 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 reclassification.

It is currently impossible for me to find parking on my own 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
5-38 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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.

PUB4 9/11/2023 Francie Souza
PUB4-1 I am a resident of San Mateo and have additional comments on the General Plan, as outlined below:

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB4-2 through PUB2-3.

PUB4-2 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 Staffing levels are not within the scope of the EIR, as CEQA only considers physical environmental impacts created
through the provision of new or physically altered public services facilities. As stated in Chapter 4.14, Public Services, page 4.14-13, of the Draft EIR, any future construction of new or renovated police stations 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. This would ensure that potential environmental impacts of future construction would be
properly analyzed and mitigated. Furthermore, as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter

4.14, Public Services, 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
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-39
Comment # Comment Response
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.
cover assessments or staffing studies periodically for police and fire services to ensure that appropriate response times, staffing, and levels of service are available to meet community needs as the City’s population grows.

The comment also asks how the City can move toward
proactively planning for the increase in demand. The
comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB4-3 Transportation, section 4.15-8
It appears on the map that 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue are designated as “Arterials”. As defined, Arterial streets are ‘signalized’ with higher capacity to accommodate traffic volumes offering continuous movement with coordinated
and interconnected signal systems.

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
5-40 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response

5th Avenue and 9th Avenue are neighborhood streets, with traffic circles on 5th to slow traffic and both streets serve as local streets in the Central Neighborhood, which include primarily single family/duplex homes. 5th Avenue is also proposed as a bicycle boulevard with traffic calming from S.

Delaware to S. 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 9th Avenues to Arterials.

PUB5 9/12/2023 David Light
PUB5-1 Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
I would like to comment on sections of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Draft General Plan 2040.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB5-2 through PUB5-3.

PUB5-2 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 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 5-41
Comment # Comment Response
certainly prefer to locate new multi-story projects on lower risk areas rather than on historic landfill areas that are at higher risk. However, many of our single family and duplex home neighborhoods are currently located on the desirable moderate risk liquefaction areas. These single family home neighborhoods should not be displaced by large
developments. San Mateo needs to protect and preserve
our charming older homes in single family and duplex
neighborhoods that make San Mateo a desirable place to
live.

PUB5-3 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.

Thank you for considering my comments!
The comment is noted. The California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality identifies priority strategies for local Climate Action Plans (CAPs) to incorporate to ensure State's carbon neutrality goals, which includes electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure to meet the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), increase access to clean mobility options, and support new
development near transit.

As stated in Table 4.7-6, Consistency Analysis with the City of San Mateo Climate Action Plan, in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, future development under the proposed project would be constructed to include enhanced EV charging and EV infrastructure per the City's Reach Code, which would exceed CALGreen's requirements for residential and nonresidential development. For one- and two-family dwelling or townhomes, the City's Reach Code requirements for EV charging infrastructure includes one Level 2 EV Ready space per dwelling unit and one Level 1 EV Ready space if second space is provided. For multi-family buildings, 15 percent of parking spaces are required to be equipped with Level 2 EV Charging Stations and the remaining 85 percent are required to be Level 2 EV Ready. For office buildings, 20 STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-42 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
percent of parking spaces are required to be equipped with Level 2 EV Charging Stations and 30 percent Level 2 EV
Capable.

Additionally, San Mateo has a Citywide Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan, which includes SMMC
Section 27.09.060, Transportation Demand Management, to require all projects with a net increase of 100 PM peak hours trips to include a trip reduction and parking management plan. Implementation of these required TDM strategies will help manage the reduction in parking requirements and
reduce citywide transportation related GHG emissions.

PUB6 9/12/2023 Laurie Watanuki
PUB6-1 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)
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB6-2 2. Commercial development adjacent to residential. New infill building designs need to respect existing community character, using established building designs found in San Mateo. Encourage new developments to be compatible and
harmonious with building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo especially with the surrounding
residential neighborhoods and Downtown Historic District. (Action CD 8.7)
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB6-3 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 The comment is noted. CEQA requires project-level
environmental review to evaluate and mitigate the impact of future projects on aesthetics or historical resources. 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 5-43
Comment # Comment Response
on existing older neighborhoods and the Historic
Downtown.

PUB6-4 4. Street lighting standards - More green street lamps are needed at dark residential intersections and longer
residential blocks. This impacts safety for pedestrians and bicyclists in Equity Priority and underserved neighborhood areas in the Central Neighborhood and North Central
Neighborhood.

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

PUB6-5 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) The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB6-6 6. Neighborhood Beautification - Encourage drought tolerant green landscaping in residential neighborhoods and commercial projects and expand the tree canopies in front yards and plant more street trees through street tree plan.

Especially in Equity Priority Neighborhoods.

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

PUB6-7 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.

The comment is noted. Proposed General Plan Policy CD 5.2, Historic Preservation, encourages the identification and preservation of historic resources. Proposed Policy CD 5.10, Historic Resources Survey, would require the City to establish and maintain an inventory of architecturally, culturally, historically significant resources by seeking funding
opportunities to update the historic survey. 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
5-44 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB6-8 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
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB6-9 3. New infill building designs need to respect existing community character, using established building designs found in San Mateo. Encourage new developments to be
compatible and harmonious with building types and
architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo. Policy LU 4.2 - Quality of Downtown Development.

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

PUB6-10 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.

The comment refers to a new Yoshiko Yamanouchi House
historical district, and states that documentation will be provided for the EIR; however, no documentation is provided in this letter. Please see Response ORG1-2 regarding the added discussion of the status of the requests to list the Baywood District and Yoshiko Yamanouchi House in the
National Register with the California OHP to the Draft EIR.

PUB6-11 5. Demolition permits should be issued at the same time as building permits, and not before.

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

PUB6-12 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.

As stated in Chapter 4.11, Noise, on page 4.11-51, of the Draft EIR, the analysis of project traffic noise is a cumulative analysis in that the transportation modeling also includes the citywide and regional changes in housing units and employment that would occur through the buildout horizon of 2040. The
proposed project would result in a significant traffic noise impact to the segment of 1st Avenue between Ellsworth
Avenue and B Street; therefore, the proposed project would STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-45
Comment # Comment Response
result in a cumulatively considerable and significant noise impact associated with cumulative traffic noise, as is fully disclosed in the Draft and Final EIR.

It is noted that all future projects subject to discretionary review under the proposed project would be required to be evaluated for noise/land use compatibility, including traffic noise/land use compatibility. Proposed General Plan Policy N

1.1, Noise and Land Use Planning, would require the
integration of noise considerations into land use planning decisions to minimize new traffic noise impacts to or from new development. Proposed Policy N 1.2, Interior Noise Level Standard, would require the submittal of an acoustical
analysis and interior noise insulation for all “noise sensitive” land uses that are determined to likely have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or above, as shown on Figure N-2 of the General Plan (Figure 4.11-5, Future Traffic Noise Contours, in Chapter 4.11 of the Draft EIR). Similarly, proposed Policy N

1.3, Exterior Noise Level Standard for Residential Uses, would require the submittal of an acoustical analysis for all new multifamily common open space that have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or above, as shown on Figure N-2 of the General Plan (Figure 4.11-5 in Chapter 4.11 of the Draft EIR).

The acoustical analyses at the project level would include refined evaluation of noise/land use compatibility in order to more precisely identify the existing ambient noise
environment affecting the subject site, typically achieved through baseline noise measurements with a sound level
meter and/or calculating traffic noise from surrounding roadway facilities with regulatory traffic noise models. The location-specific baseline noise measurements and/or traffic noise calculations presented in the acoustical analyses either STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-46 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
demonstrate the noise/land use compatibility between a
proposed land use and location or assist with the
characterization of the ambient noise environment in a
manner that allows for implementation of the appropriate noise attenuation measures necessary to protect the new noise-sensitive land use. Beyond these protective policy provisions, lead agencies have limited remedies at their disposal to effectively reduce traffic-related noise. Addressing traffic noise at the receiver rather than the source usually takes the form of noise barriers (i.e., sound walls). While constructing noise barriers along streets would reduce noise, the placement of sound walls between existing
residences/businesses and local roadways would not be
desirable as it would conflict with the community’s aesthetic, design, and character, and is therefore deemed infeasible.

Furthermore, such barriers would likely require property owner approval, which cannot be ensured. While measures such as encouraging ridesharing, carpooling, and alternative modes of transportation could reduce vehicle volumes, and are promoted by the City and by the proposed project, such measures cannot be relied upon to demonstrate a reduction in vehicle trips to the extent needed to ensure reduced vehicle noise levels below established thresholds. Therefore, with the proposed policies, the impact to noise has been reduced to the extent feasible and no further mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to less-than-significant at the
programmatic level.

PUB6-13 1. Existing noise contours - the areas along S Amphett/Idaho are in the 65-70 dab range. Since higher sound walls haven’t been constructed along Highway 101, can the City plant
more trees along the sound wall between Poplar and 3rd
Avenue and 5th Avenue and Folkstone. North Central,
Central, and Sunnybrae would benefit. Italian Cypress trees Vegetative screening, which can sometimes provide some
small degree of noise reduction, is not typically considered as an adequate noise-reduction measure. Several reasons
contribute to this, including the limited noise reduction capability of trees. While trees primarily act as a visual barrier, and they are not dense enough to effectively block or absorb STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-47
Comment # Comment Response
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.
sound waves. Noise reduction with trees is typically limited to high-frequency sounds, such as those generated by birds, rather than the low-frequency, high-intensity sounds from sources like industrial equipment or traffic. Vegetative screening as a noise reduction mechanism is also limited by seasonal variability such as shedding leaves in the fall and regrowing them in the spring. When deciduous trees are bare during the winter, their noise-reducing capabilities are significantly reduced, and they offer less protection from noise. Additionally, trees take years to mature and grow to a size where they can provide any form of noise reduction, and can suffer mortality.

PUB6-14 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
As a program-level EIR, this EIR cannot predict the sequence of future projects within the EIR Study Area. Development will be permitted throughout the EIR Study Area subject to local review procedures and in compliance with applicable
regulations and requirements. For discretionary approvals, applicable CEQA review will involve an evaluation of
cumulative impacts, including construction-phase effects such as those noted by the commenter. Regarding construction noise, the City of San Mateo has established and enforces noise standards for construction activity for both daytime and nighttime hours. For instance, SMMC Section 7.30.060
exempts construction noise from noise standards so long as construction activities are restricted to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of noon and 4:00 p.m.; and requires that the construction noise level at any point outside of the construction site does not exceed 90 dBA. It is common for cities to regulate construction noise in this manner because construction noise is temporary, short term, and intermittent in nature, and ceases upon completion of construction.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-48 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response

Further, the proposed General Plan Noise Element would
regulate the construction noise of larger development
projects that demand intensive construction periods by
requiring construction noise monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout construction. A monitoring plan would be required to be prepared to include information on the
monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the
instrumentation to be used, and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.

Therefore, while the potential exists for construction projects under the proposed project and other foreseeable
development to occur simultaneously and in proximity to one another, construction equipment operations would operate within the constraints of the SMMC and proposed General Plan Noise Element.

PUB6-15 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.

Please see Response PUB6-14. Proposed General Plan Policy N

2.7, Construction Noise and Vibration Monitoring, would require construction noise limits and vibration monitoring around certain sensitive receptors. For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, proposed Policy N 2.7 would require a vibration impact analysis, as well as monitoring and reporting of noise/vibration levels
throughout construction, consistent with industry standards.

As discussed in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, future development under the proposed project would be
required to comply with Mitigation Measure AQ-2 which
requires implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) best management practices for
construction-related fugitive dust emissions. Dust-control measures include soil binders, chemical dust suppressants, STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-49
Comment # Comment Response
covering stockpiles, permanent vegetation, mulching,
watering, temporary gravel construction, synthetic covers, and minimization of disturbed area.

PUB6-16 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.

The comment is noted. As concluded in Chapter 4.11, Noise, and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant noise and traffic impacts with the exception of a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact to the segment of 1st Avenue between Ellsworth Avenue and B Street for which there are no additional feasible mitigation measures. The comment
addresses General Plan policy and includes opinion, but does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB6-17 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 The 3rd Avenue interchange location has been identified as a location that needs bicycle and pedestrian improvement as a part of the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. A further study will be conducted by Caltrans and/or the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) to identify the physical improvements. The timeline for project construction will be established after the completion and approval of the physical improvements.

PUB6-18 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.

Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB6-19 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
As identified in Table 4.7-5, City of San Mateo GHG Emissions Forecast, in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the current long-term legislative GHG reduction targets under Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 1279, which is attributable to STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-50 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
increase deficiencies in transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes. Page 495
statewide emission reduction strategies such as the California Air Resources Board's Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations. These statewide emission reduction strategies would reduce smog-forming emissions, promote zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and start the initiative toward the increase in sales of zero-emission trucks.

Also noted in Chapter 4.7, page 4.7-26, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project contains various policies to minimize mobile- source emissions, including proposed General Plan Policy C

1.4, Prioritize Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Needs, Policy C

1.6, Transit-Oriented Development, and Policy C 2.1, TDM Requirements. The proposed project would encourage new
development in designated Priority Development Areas
(PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) throughout the EIR Study Area, which would promote the use of public
transportation. In addition, the City's proposed CAP update also provides mandates for future development to encourage mobile emission reductions. Clean Transportation Fuels (CF) 2 through CF 4 of the proposed CAP promotes clean
transportation fuels and EV charging stations within the community and Sustainable Transportation Fuels (ST) 1
through ST 7 encourages safe, reliable alternative
transportation options. The proposed General Plan policies and proposed CAP update would serve to further support
potential GHG reductions for future development under the proposed project. Furthermore, implementation of State
measures and strategies to reduce Statewide GHG emissions, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard mandate or
Renewables Portfolio Standard requirements, would also aid in reducing future mobile emissions.

PUB6-20 4. The proposed project increases the use of roadway facilities in the EIR study study. [sic] This increases cut- through traffic volumes, GHG emissions, VMT and noise
The Circulation Element promotes various types of TDM
measures and active transportation infrastructure that are expected to help reduce trips and, therefore, GHGs in the STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-51
Comment # Comment Response
levels. Why are the current TDM strategies not working
well?
future. Also, VMT was analyzed for the project and was
determined to be less than significant. However, VMT for individual projects will be analyzed per CEQA requirements to determine individual project impacts. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB6-21 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 Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB6-22 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.

This comment includes opinion but does not address the
adequacy of the Draft EIR. Modifications to the City’s current truck route policy and map will require further study and are not included specifically in the General Plan. Information about the City's current truck policy and route map can be found online at:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2124/Truck-Route-Program.

PUB6-23 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
The Draft EIR analyses for VMT, GHG emissions, and traffic conclude that impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Air quality impacts relating to diesel particulates were found to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3. While the proposed project would result in a significant and
unavoidable traffic noise impact to the segment of roadway on 1st Avenue west of B Street, noise impacts on 5th and 9th Avenues were found to be less than significant. Regarding roadway classifications, please see Master Response 2,
Roadway Classifications.

PUB6-24 8. Action - C 3.9 - Currently the Downtown Mall is on B Street from 2nd to 3rd Avenues. Please extend this
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, no further response is required.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-52 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
Pedestrian Mall from 3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue to reduce the traffic volumes. Page 502
PUB6-25 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.

This comment includes opinion but does not address the
adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. The Draft EIR acknowledges that TDM mitigation programs will be adopted where feasible for individual
projects based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines.

PUB6-26 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.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB6-27 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.

Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are provided in Appendix D, Noise Data, of the Draft EIR, specifically in Appendix D2:

Traffic Noise Calculations. As shown in Appendix D2 of the Draft EIR, the existing ADT on Peninsula Avenue between Humboldt Street and Delaware Street is 15,928, and projected to be 17,910 with the General Plan; and existing ADT on Poplar Avenue between Humboldt Street and Delaware Street is 7,823 and projected to be 8,003 with the General Plan.

PUB6-28 12. What is the percentage of Burlingame traffic that use the Poplar Exit in San Mateo?
The traffic model does not readily provide this type of traffic information; and any such information or modeling would be speculative. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB6-29 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?
The traffic model does not readily output this information.

The cumulative analysis included in the Draft EIR does include the new proposed interchange at Peninsula Avenue and has accounted for shifts in ADT traffic to Peninsula Avenue and to 3rd/4th Street interchanges. It should be noted that while this project is currently on hold, the project-level analysis would STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-53
Comment # Comment Response
be completed if this project moves forward to identify and address potential operational deficiencies at intersections where traffic has been redirected as a result of the project.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB6-30 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?
The City is conducting separate grade separation studies independent of the General Plan. More information about the project could be found here:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2279/Train-Horn-Noise. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB6-31 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.

Equity Priority Communities are those that are
disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution and negative socioeconomic outcomes. The proposed General
Plan 2040 identifies Equity Priority Communities based on both local knowledge and CalEnviroScreen 4.0, a tool that measures pollution and population characteristics using 21 indicators, such as air quality, hazardous waste sites, asthma rates, and poverty. The cumulative CalEnviroScreen percentile score for the Census tract referenced in this comment is 48, meaning that 52 percent of California Census tracts have greater pollution and socioeconomic burdens. The Central neighborhood does not currently meet the criteria that
General Plan 2040 uses to identify Equity Priority
Neighborhoods.

Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB6-32 16. What is causing traffic to decrease on 3rd and 4th Avenues between S
The traffic information is listed by segment and not time period. Traffic increase and decrease by segment depends on STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-54 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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 the proximity to major land use and roadway intersections.

Please also see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB6-33 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.

As described in Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications, two related actions have been added to the proposed General Plan 2040 following the publication of the Draft EIR. Proposed Action C 6.9 has been added to explore whether traffic
calming should be provided on neighborhood streets
designated as minor arterials and collectors, and proposed Action C 6.13 has been added based on the City’s intention for its Complete Streets Plan to be used for roadway
classifications within the city. Please see Master Response 2 for additional information related to roadway classifications and volumes.

PUB7 9/12/2023 Michael Weinhauer
PUB7-1 Commissioners - I'm writing to comment on the draft General Plan 2040 EIR, specifically sections 4-2 Air Quality, 4-3 Biological Resources, 4-5 Energy, 4-10 Land Use and Planning, and 4-13 Population and Housing.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB7-2 through PUB7-27.

PUB7-2 Overall, this EIR and the proposed General Plan make a lot of assumptions that people will not drive, and that
transportation will be readily available - these are not reasonable current or foreseeable future realities. This EIR and the GP plan for unlikely and extreme levels of growth - 40%! - that will materially worsen air quality, traffic, and other key areas as indicated by "significant and unavoidable" determinations. Why are we planning for such absurd
The buildout projections included and analyzed in the Draft EIR represent an estimate of the level of growth that may occur in the EIR Study Area by 2040. Chapter 3, Project Description, page 3-19, of the Draft EIR states: "The
projections represent the City’s estimation of 'reasonably foreseeable' development that could occur over the next 20 years under the General Plan and are used as the basis for the EIR’s environmental assessment." Buildout of the proposed STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-55
Comment # Comment Response
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
project does not commit the City to constructing new
development. Potential future developments under the
proposed project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations, including the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions, should the proposed project be
approved and implemented.

PUB7-3 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.

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

PUB7-4 Furthermore, this report uses a lot of non-committal language - "suggest", "promote", "support", "encourage".

These are meaningless without concrete legislation,
quantifiable targets that someone is accountable for, and funding to ensure aspirational plans are actually put in place, and impacts are truly understood and mitigated. We've seen way too many examples of pie-in-the-sky desires that never materialize because of language like this. You get your project, developers get rich - what do our neighborhoods get? Blight, noise, pollution, traffic, crime,
displacement…the list goes on and on.

This comment asserts that certain language used in the Draft EIR is non-committal and hence meaningless. The language referred to is used due to the Draft EIR quoting specific goals, policies, and actions from the proposed General Plan. Both proposed General Plan 2040 and this EIR are based on the assumption that the City has invested time and resources into crafting goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan that will be adopted and implemented, consistent with State law. The General Plan sets policy and hence the policy language provides general guidance and direction. The
implementation of a General Plan occurs through standards and requirements within the municipal code and other
technical documents. For most topics analyzed in the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions are supported and reinforced by other adopted City standards and procedures, as well as by regional, State, and federal
regulations and plans.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-56 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 regarding streamlining for infill projects--which, given the built-out nature of San Mateo, almost all future projects in San Mateo would be--recognizes and encourages the use of "uniformly applicable development policies or standards" and defines these as: “policies or standards adopted or enacted by a city or county, or by a lead agency, that reduce one or more adverse environmental
effects. Examples of uniformly applicable development
policies or standards include, but are not limited to: (A) Regulations governing construction activities, including noise regulations, dust control, provisions for discovery of
archeological and paleontological resources, stormwater runoff treatment and containment, protection against the release of hazardous materials, recycling of construction and demolition waste, temporary street closure and traffic
rerouting, and similar regulations. (B) Requirements in locally adopted building, grading and stormwater codes. (C) Design guidelines. (D) Requirements for protecting residents from sources of air pollution including high volume roadways and stationary sources. (E) Impact fee programs to provide public improvements, police, fire, parks and other open space, libraries and other public services and infrastructure, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming devices. (F) Traffic impact fees. (G) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations. (H) Ordinances addressing protection of urban trees and historic resources.” The City of San Mateo has adopted uniformly applicable
development policies and standards in each of these
categories to further support and enforce the policies and actions of the General Plan as individual development projects are proposed and considered.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-57
Comment # Comment Response
PUB7-5 Calls for "decarbonizing housing stock" are rife in this document. We have very serious doubts about rushing the timelines for electrification, given PG&E's inability to support existing demand, as well as significant costs to property owners for conversion if forced. This should be more of a carrot (incentive-based) than stick approach.

As noted in Table 4.7-3, Priority Strategies for Local
Government Climate Action Plans, in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the California Air Resources Board recommends priority strategies for incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits (e.g., weatherization and replacing energy-intensive appliances with more efficient systems) and to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings. The increase in electricity demand for the EIR Study Area is approximately 0.1 percent of PG&E's
projected energy supply in 2035, therefore there will be sufficient electrical supply and existing infrastructure to serve the future increase in population within PG&E's service areas.

Potential future development would be required to comply with current and future updates to the California Energy Code and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing overall energy demand. In addition, the City encourages the
installation of local renewable resources, such as rooftop solar energy systems, which will reduce the cost of electricity for the community and enhance the local economy. By expanding on-site electricity generation and storage, San Mateo will help minimize the impact of grid failures and power disruptions.

PUB7-6 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).

Roughly 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 The comment is noted. The comment expresses concerns
regarding the potential impacts of the proposed project and associated policies related to heights and densities, but 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
5-58 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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.

PUB7-7 Specifically with regard to 4-2 Air Quality:

Placement of AQ receptors and ongoing monitoring and
remediation (page 25) - it is important these are funded, implemented, monitored and enforced. Language needs to
be stronger, quantifiable, and should have funding and
accountability defined.

BAAQMD’s Planning Health Places provides a list of
recommendations for lead agencies to use for projects that introduce new sensitive receptors within certain screening distances. 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.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measure AQ-3, as outlined in Chapter

4.2, Air Quality, on page 4.2-61, of the Draft EIR, would require future projects that could potentially exceed
BAAQMD's adopted operation threshold of significance to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce long-term air pollutant emissions during operational activities. These identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or the MMRP adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review (see Appendix H, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final EIR).

Lastly, 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 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and particulate matter (PM2.5). 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. The STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-59
Comment # Comment Response
proposed policies also require collaboration efforts with BAAQMD and the City to reevaluate permit processes, outline objectives and strategies for monitoring air pollution, and monitor key health indicators to measure the success of the outcome of the proposed General Plan policies and
implementation actions.

PUB7-8 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) The comment refers to pages in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR but does not address the adequacy of the
analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB7-9 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?
As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, on page

4.13-9, of the Draft EIR, the regional projections used to compare growth at the city level were from Plan Bay Area 2040 and not the updated Plan Bay Area 2050, which does not provide growth projections at the city level to enable
comparison to local plans. However, housing and job growth as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan 2040 would be within Plan Bay Area 2050 projections of a 48 percent increase of housing units and 29 percent increase of jobs at the county level. Please also see Response PUB7-2 regarding planned growth. As stated on page 4.13-9 of the Draft EIR, approximately 33 percent of projected residential growth would come from the City’s 2023-2031 Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 7,015 units, which is housing capacity required by the California Housing Law and not by the City.

PUB7-10 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.

The comment is noted. The City Council, on November 20, 2023 adopted Objective Design Standards for new residential and mixed use projects in the city. The comment does not STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-60 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response

We need high quality, community-accepted, objective
design standards and other mechanisms to ensure this
happens beyond lip service.
address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR;
therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB7-11 Page 46 CD-3 - Protect heritage trees, street trees, street tree equity. We specifically asked that some trees 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.

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

PUB7-12 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 Draft EIR discloses VMT effects, and the increase in total VMT was accounted for in the transportation and air quality analyses in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, and Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, respectively. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB7-13 The proposed General Plan results in ~50% growth in air pollutants, ESP COMPARED TO NO PROJECT where they
decrease (below). While we realize no project isn't viable, there is a more moderate growth path that maintains or
even improves AQ.

AQ-3-6 are all "significant and unavoidable" impacts. Any way you slice this, air quality gets worse!
The comment states that implementation of the proposed
General Plan would result in approximately 50 percent growth in criteria air pollutants. As shown in Table 4.2-10, Proposed Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast (Scenario 1, Comparison to Existing Conditions), and Table 4.2-11, Net Change in Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast (Scenario 2, Comparison to Future No Project Conditions), in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, criteria air pollutants would increase for all criteria air pollutants with
implementation of the proposed project, but not at a rate of a 50 percent increase. When compared to Scenario 2 (Future No Project Conditions), the proposed project scenario would lead to an increase in volatile organic compounds from consumer products used in residential development and a decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions despite the growth associated with the proposed project. The comment incorrectly states STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-61
Comment # Comment Response
that impact discussions AQ-3 through AQ-6 in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR concluded with significant and unavoidable impacts. Impact discussion AQ-5 in Chapter 4.2, page 4.2-68, of the Draft EIR concluded a less-than-significant impact regarding odor emissions affecting a substantial number of people. Although the other impact discussions were
determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact, Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, and implementation of the proposed General Plan policies identified in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to short-term and long-term regional criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible compared to a No Project scenario.

PUB7-14 Specifically with regard to 4-3 Biological Resources:

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

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

PUB7-15 Specifically with regard to 4-5 Energy:

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

As shown in Table 4.5-3, Year 2040 Forecast Electricity Consumption, in Chapter 4.5, Energy, of the Draft EIR, total electricity usage would increase by 177,799,653 kWh per year, a 33-percent increase from existing conditions. However, service population would also increase by 68,940 people at forecast year 2040. Therefore, with consideration of service population growth, the per service population electricity consumption was estimated to decrease from 3,140 kWh per person per year in 2019 to 2,979 kWh per person per year in 2040 (a reduction of approximately 161 kWh annually).

PUB7-16 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 The comment expresses concern regarding decarbonization but does not express a specific concern regarding the analysis in the Draft EIR. Please see Response PUB 7-5 regarding electricity demand.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-62 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
conversion if forced. This should be more of a carrot
(incentive-based) than stick approach.

PUB7-17 MTA/ABAG/CCAG etc focus on PDA/TPA - We do not have good transit, and it's not getting better. If anything it's getting worse with BART, CalTrain, and SamTrans ridership woes. Without T - ToD is just "D". Build the T, then let's talk about ToD, otherwise every assumption here is wrong. TDM - great idea in theory but there are numerous developments using TDM already. Where's the data on this - is it really working before we bet heavily on it?
The transportation analysis accounts for all future transit programs by BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans. Building near existing transit is reflected in the improved mode split for transit and non-motorized modes.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that TDM mitigation programs are challenging to measure and monitor at a citywide scale due to multiple influences, externalities, and causality with the limited research and guidance available. However, on a
development scale, TDM does result in trip and VMT
reduction.

PUB7-18 (Page 26) Goal C-5: Make transit a viable transportation option for the community by supporting frequent, reliable, cost-efficient, and connected service.

Policy C 5.1: Increase Transit Ridership. Support SamTrans and Caltrain in their efforts to increase transit ridership.

The above is very aspirational. Again w the "supporting" verbiage - need concrete commitments/requirements
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB7-19 Specifically with regard to 4-10 Land Use and Planning: GP 2030 is cited a lot in here - is this a typo? Should be 2040? References to General Plan 2030 in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR are correct and not a typo.

These references pertain to the current General Plan and existing land use designations.

PUB7-20 Measure Y - This paragraph is incomplete, and Y does not allow for off-site development - requires onsite and no in- lieu fees paid. Please fix this so the public is properly and accurately informed.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, the information provided on Measure Y in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR has been revised to complete the paragraph.

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-63
Comment # Comment Response
PUB7-21 Proposed zoning categories are distorted and effectively eliminate single family zoning. Furthermore, categories don't mention state density bonus and state laws that grant
additional stories and floor area BY RIGHT. This is not what San Mateans want. They support growth along with
preservation of neighborhoods and historic assets. That is why Measure Y was passed, and has been renewed in
essence, for 25 years. It is also important to realize that Measure Y helps affordable housing ACTUALLY GET BUILT,
instead of allowing developers to pay significantly cheaper in-lieu fees to avoid it. Finally Measure Y stipulates that any zoning over the limits specified by Measure Y will require approval of the voters, which absent a good General Plan that is acceptable to a majority of voters, is unlikely to happen.

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

PUB7-22 Balance (Page 14) - restatement of same goal of balancing housing and office and housing diversity. This EIR and the proposed General Plan claim throughout to require
balancing jobs and office. Given the massive current
imbalance, the focus should be almost entirely on housing.

And not luxury, rental-only housing - affordable housing.

And existing 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.

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

PUB7-23 Specifically with regard to 4-13 Population and Housing:

Page 39 ends

San Mateo City CouncilMarch 18, 2024

San Mateo City Council
March 18, 2024