1 2
4 6
2 Station Park Green
430 Station Park Circle
(APN 035-200-220)
Addendum to the Station Park Green (PA 07-030) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration State Clearinghouse No. 2010082076 and to the Addendum for Station Park Green SPAR, SDP, and TM Application (PA 14-055) A.INTRODUCTION
This environmental document is a second Addendum to the Station Park Green Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2010082076), adopted on January 18, 2011, by the City Council of the City of San Mateo (the “MND”). The MND tiered off of the Rail Corridor Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003042170). The program studied in the MND matched that described in the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines, and authorized under the Development Agreement, all of which were also studied and approved by the City Council on January 18, 2011. That program includes:
Up to 599 dwelling units;
A minimum of 25,000 gross square feet (“gsf”) and up to 60,000 gsf of retail / services / restaurant uses;
A minimum of 10,000 gsf and up to 45,000 gsf of office use; and Approximately 2.0 acres of privately maintained open space open to the general public.
In 2014, an application (PA 14-055) for a Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), Site Development Planning Application (SDPA), Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Amendments to the Station Park Green Specific Plan and Design Guidelines was submitted. Along with the application, an Addendum to the MND was provided.
The City Council approved the application on February 2, 2015, and the approved program included:
599 dwelling units (1-BR, 2-BR and 3-BR Dwelling Units); 26,000 gross square feet (“gsf”) of retail / services / restaurant uses; 11,000 gsf of office uses; and
More than 2.0 acres of privately maintained open space open to the general public.
The project has since been completed. However, since the adoption of the Station Park Green Specific Plan and Design Guidelines and MND, the applicant proposes changes to the previously approved project, including modifying the minimum and maximum amounts of retail and office space that is permitted on the site.
B.BACKGROUND
The City of San Mateo prepared the MND to address potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the project. The range of potential environmental effects assessed included aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. The MND found that all impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures. In approving the original and subsequent projects, the City of San Mateo imposed a combined Conditions of Approval & Mitigation Monitoring Program.
1 2
4 6
2 C.PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval of that project is required (CEQA Guidelines 15162(c).) The Revised Project, however, does require further discretionary approval, including amendments to the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines.
Accordingly, the City, as the lead agency, must determine whether a Subsequent EIR or MND is required for the Revised Project.
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set criteria for that determination. If the following criteria are all true, then a Subsequent EIR or MND is not required, and an Addendum is the appropriate document:
No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures. No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impact will occur. No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible.
D.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed revisions include the following:
Changing the allowable use ranges from 25,000 - 30,000 gross square feet (gsf) of retail/services/restaurant uses, and 10,000 - 15,000 gsf of office uses to 3,000 - 30,000 gsf of retail/services/restaurant uses and 10,000 - 35,000 gsf of office uses. Changing the floor area ratio (FAR) values for retail from 0.2 to 0.1 and changing office FAR from 0.1 to 0.2.
Expanding the office space allowances to in addition to retail/services/restaurants on the ground floor to support occupancy of this existing non-residential space and support increase economic vibrancy.
For a detailed comparison of the current project to the original and previously approved projects please refer to Section E.2 below.
D.1PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site comprises approximately 12 acres located at the southwesterly corner of the intersection of South Delaware Street and Concar Drive in the City of San Mateo (the “Site”). The completed development contains four structures with residential uses. The development is located adjacent to Hayward Park Caltrain Station and has interior streets enclosing a park. Building MU-1, located at the corner of S. Delaware Street and Concar Drive, features four levels of residential units above ground-floor retail and office spaces. The Site is located adjacent to a variety of uses, including: commercial and office uses directly to the west (including the Delaware Street Post Office); multi-family and single-family uses to the north and east; retail uses to the east along the State Route 92 corridor; office uses directly to the south adjacent to the highway off-ramp; and the Hayward Park CalTrain Station, rail line and park-and-ride lot directly to the south. Both the City’s General Plan and its zoning code designate the entire Site for Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”). 1 2
4 6
2 1
2 4
6 2
D.2PROJECT REFINEMENTS SINCE MND ADOPTION
The revised project does not change the amount of residential units or existing structures’ setbacks, heights, or overall floor area ratios.
Uses Original Project 2014 Project Revised Project
Residential Uses Up to 599 units 599 units 599 units (no change) Retail/Restaurant/Service 25,000-60,000 gsf 26,000 gsf 3,000-30,000 gsf Office Uses 10,000-45,000 gsf 11,000 gsf 10,000-35,000 gsf Public Open Space 2.0 acres 2.0+ acres 2.3 acres (no change) The Rail Corridor Plan set all the development standards for the Site, and these standards were, in turn, reflected in the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. See the table below for a comparison of the Revised Project to the Rail Corridor Plan:
Development Standard Rail Corridor Plan 2014 Project Revised Project Max. Floor Area
Ratio (All Uses)
3.0 2.3 No change
Max. Floor Area
Ratio (Retail)
0.3 <0.3; 0.1 for office 0.1 for retail; 0.2 for
office
Max. Building Height 55 feet (35 ft. along S.
Delaware St. )
55 feet (35 ft. along
S. Delaware St.)
No change
Min. Setbacks None Required None Required No change
The revised project proposes parking ratios consistent with the Specific Plan. Station Park Green is intended as a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, transit-oriented development, which offers the opportunity to share parking stalls between uses with different parking demand periods.
The approved project required the following (pursuant to Sec. 27.90.050 of the San Mateo Municipal Code):
LAND USE PARKING REQUIREMENT
Studio Dwelling Unit 1.0 (stalls per unit)
1-BR Dwelling Unit 1.3 (stalls per unit)
2-BR Dwelling Unit 1.5 (stalls per unit)
3-BR Dwelling Unit 1.8 (stalls per unit)
Office 0.32 (stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Retail/Restaurant/Services 2.06 (stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.) The previously approved project included 781 residential parking stalls, which is three (3) more than the required number. With approximately 11,000 square feet of Office, and approximately 26,000 square feet of Retail/ Restaurant/Services, the previously approved project only required 57 non-residential stalls to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance. The previously approved project actually provided 131 non-residential parking stalls, 1 2
4 6
2 which is 74 more than the required number. Of the 131 non-residential stalls:
20 will be reserved for 9,000 square feet of proposed Office space; 94 will be shared by the remaining 28,000 square feet of non-residential space; 12 will be reserved for loading;
5 will be reserved for public car-sharing services.
The current project proposes no change in the overall number of parking spaces. However, due to the change in uses, the number of required non-residential spaces has decreased. Now, only 25 spaces are required in order to meet the development’s TDM program. In the Trip Generation Study developed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., the proposed conversion of retail space to office space would generate fewer vehicle trips during peak hours. Furthermore, since Assembly Bill 2097 was signed into law, additional parking for residential and commercial uses is not required for a project within a one-half mile of a major transit stop (Hayward Park Caltrain Station).
E.ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, to provide the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Original Project, changes in circumstances, or new information since the MND was adopted require preparation of a Subsequent EIR or MND.
The refinements to the previously approved projects are described in Section E (Project Description), above.
The environmental analysis provided in the MND remains current and applicable to the Revised Project in areas unaffected by the refinements for the environmental topics, as listed below:
Aesthetics: The standard regulates projects that may have an impact on scenic vistas, scenic resources, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to aesthetic resources beyond those identified in the MND, as there are no scenic vistas, resources, or light impacts on the site as the building has completed construction.
The revised project does not change the structure configuration or overall building design. All changes to the tenant spaces are proposed in the interior of Building MU-1. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The standard regulates projects located on prime or unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, land zoned for agriculture, or forested land. The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to agriculture or forestry beyond those identified in the MND because there are no prime, unique, or statewide important farmlands in the project study area. The MND did not identify any impacts to agricultural uses; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the revised project, either. Air Quality: The standard regulates projects that conflict with an air quality plan, would result in a considerable increase of pollutants, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations, or result in other emissions that would adversely affect people. The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to air quality beyond those identified in the MND.
The background conditions, construction, equipment mix, and works hours identified in the MND have not changed significantly, and the proposed refinements would not result in any operational changes to the project once constructed. Therefore, as described in the MND, the project would not exceed any Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) standards or contribute to air quality deterioration beyond BAAQMD projections. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements. The proposed amendment would not trigger a substantial increase in 1 2
4 6
2 pollutants, as future work to the building will primarily be in the interior of the structure. Biological Resources: The standard regulates projects that would have substantial effect on animal species, habitats, wetlands or marshlands, wildlife corridors, or have any other impact on established conservation plans. The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to biological resources beyond those identified in the MND would not increase impacts to biological resources, either directly or indirectly. The structure is existing, and there are no hydrological resources or otherwise protected animal habitats on the site. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Cultural Resources: The standard regulates projects that may impact historic resources, archeological resources, or disturb human remains. The Site is located in a “low-sensitivity” archaeology zone, and there are no known historic resources located at the Site. The project does not propose any site disturbances that may impact potential cultural resources, as the proposed project would effect the interior of the existing structure. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Energy: The standard regulates projects that would create environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of resources or would otherwise obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy efficiency. The proposed amendment would not result in wasteful or inefficient energy consumption as the office uses would not increase energy use intensity. No new mitigation measures are required.
Geology and Soils: The standard regulates projects that may be impacted from earthquakes, soil erosion, or located on soils are unstable or otherwise cannot support the structure. The proposed refinements would not result in substantially different geophysical impacts beyond those identified in the MND. The project does not propose any grading or other impacts to the soil, as the amendment would impact interior construction of an existing building. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The standard regulates projects that may significantly impact the environment or conflict with an applicable plan or policy that reduces greenhouse gases, The project does not impact greenhouse gas emissions due to the proposed amendment or construction.
Accordingly, the proposed refinements would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions or related impacts to global climate change or conflicts with applicable climate change plans, policies, or regulations. Additionally, due to the reduction of retail, there is an estimated net reduction of vehicle trips that would lower greenhouse gas emissions to the site. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The standard regulates projects that would create a significant hazard to the public, emit hazardous materials, be on a hazardous materials site, or impact emergency response plans. The proposed project would not increase risks related to hazards or hazardous materials relative to the previously approved projects. The prior project mitigated potential hazards associated with removal of underground storage tanks as well as asbestos-containing materials, lead- based paint residues, mercury and PCB-based materials, as applicable. For the current project, the proposed amendment would not increase the spread of hazardous materials or waste. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements. Hydrology and Water Quality: The standard regulates projects that may degrade onsite water quality, 1 2
4 6
2 interfere with groundwater recharge, substantially impact drainage, or otherwise obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan. The proposed project does not impact hydrology and water quality requirements, and future interior construction shall comply with all applicable water- quality regulations. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements. Land Use and Planning: The standard regulates projects that would divide an established community or cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation.
The proposed project would not divide an established community. The project will meet the same land use and planning goals, objectives, and policies as the studied and approved previously, in addition to meeting the goals and policies in the subsequently adopted General Plan 2040 (including Land Use Policy LU 3.2, Commercial Development; LU 3.10, Office Park Evolution; LU 3.9, Workplaces; and Community Design and Historic Preservation Policy CD 8.2, Human-Scale Design). The project still proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Program that would meet the requirements of the Rail Corridor Plan, as well as the previously approved projects’ combined Conditions of Approval & Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
Mineral Resources: The standard regulates projects that would result in a loss of the availability of a valuable known mineral resource. The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to mineral resources beyond those identified in the MND, and because the Site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value, the MND did not identify any impacts to mineral resources; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Noise: The standard regulates projects that generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity, generate excessive ground vibration, or impact an airstrip or airport. The proposed project would not result in additional impacts due to noise or vibration beyond those identified in the MND. The proposed refinements to the previously approved projects would not result in design or operational changes to the project site or surrounding area from that analyzed in the MND. The proposed amendment to allow for increase office uses would not generate a permanent increase in noise levels. No new mitigation measures are required for the Revised Project. Population and Housing: The standard regulates projects that induce substantial unplanned population growth or displace existing housing or people. The amended project would not have any effect on population, housing, or employment in the City or region at large, as is the case for the previously approved projects. No adverse impacts would occur in this regard as the proposed amendment would not change the number of residential units on the site. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Public Services: The standard regulates projects that may result in an adverse impact to government facilities or impact public services. The proposed refinement to the previously approved projects would not result in additional impacts to public services/utilities beyond those identified in the MND, because they would not result in operational changes to the project beyond those evaluated in the MND for the original project. The MND did not identify any potentially significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the Revised Project.
Recreation: The standard regulates projects that may deteriorate nearby parks or would require construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. The proposed refinements will not result in additional impacts to recreation beyond 1 2
4 6
2 those identified in the MND. The MND did not identify any permanent impacts to recreational resources; therefore, mitigation was not required. The proposed construction would not impact existing park resources, and the site contains an existing park that is not in the scope of work.
Accordingly, no new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements. Transportation/Traffic: The standard regulates projects that conflict with existing transportation or circulation plans, increase hazards due to design, or result in inadequate emergency access. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the original project in 2010 and was included in the MND. The MND did not identify any near-term project-specific impacts to transportation/traffic and only identified that the project would result in cumulative traffic. In 2014, a TIA prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the stated that the revised project would not result in additional impacts to transportation/traffic beyond those identified in the MND. The report concluded that the TIA was expected to generate fewer trips that the original project.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants provided a supplemental Trip Generation Study Report for the proposed changes to the office and retail uses on the site. The proposed conversion would generate 197 fewer daily trips, including 14 fewer trips during the morning peak hour and 22 fewer trips during the afternoon peak hour. The project does not propose any changes to the existing parking configuration, and the applicants have provided information that sufficient parking is provided for the change in use. Based on these findings, it has been determined that no new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Tribal Cultural Resources: The standard regulates projects that may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource that is eligible for listing in local or state historic register or if evidence is found that a cultural resource exists on the site. The Site is located in a “low-sensitivity” archaeology zone, and there are no known cultural or historic resources located at the Site. No new mitigation measures are required for the project.
Utilities and Service Systems: The standard regulates projects that require relocation or Constuction of new or expanded water treatment , drainage, power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, or otherwise impact water supplies, wastewater, or solid waste regulations. The proposed amendment would not require or result in the construction or expansion of any public utilities beyond those required for the original or previously approved projects. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements.
Wildfire. The standard regulates projects that would impact emergency response plans or are in a location that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The proposed amendment is not located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and would not increase the risk of wildfire. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.
Mandatory Findings of Significance: The standard regulates projects that may degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce wildlife habitats, or adversely impact humans. The potential impacts of the proposed project with regard to biological resources, cultural resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings would be essentially the same as under the prior projects. As impacts under the project would be similar to or reduced relative to the prior projects, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation measures are required.
F. CONCLUSIONS
1 2
4 6
2 Based upon the information outlined above, the amendments to the Specific Plan will not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the MND because the updated use ranges allowed for the ground floor of Building MU-1 are within the ranges for office and retail uses that were originally studied and allowed in the Specific Plan adopted in 2011. Nor are there any previously infeasible alternatives that are now feasible. None of the other factors set forth in Section 15162(a)(3) [new information of substantial importance] is present. An Addendum is appropriate because the project will not result in any significant effects not discussed in the prior negative declaration; there are no effects previously examined that will be more severe than what was shown in the prior negative declaration; and no previously infeasible or considerably different mitigation measures were found to substantially reduce the significant effects on the environment. As such, an addendum is appropriate because none of the changes described in Section 15162 call for a subsequent EIR (Section 15164(a)) and only minor technical changes are necessary (Section 15164(b)). The City has prepared this Addendum to address the environmental effects of the Revised Project compared to both the previously approved and original projects.
The conclusions of the analysis in this Addendum remain consistent with those made in the previously- adopted MND. Specifically, based upon substantial evidence in the light of the whole record:
No substantial changes are proposed in the previously approved project that will require major revisions of the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Revised Project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MND was adopted shows that:
oThe revised project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND; oSignificant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the MND; and
oNo mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Revised Project, but the Project Applicant declines to adopt them.
Based on the information provided above, the proposed amendments to the previously approved Specific Plan would not result in a measurable increase in any environmental impacts over what was previously analyzed in the MND and first addendum. No new significant impacts have been identified, nor is the severity of newly identified impacts substantially greater than the conclusions of the MND and first addendum. Based upon this substantial evidence, the Specific Plan Amendments would not result in a substantial change in the conclusions and analysis included in the MND. This second addendum shall be maintained as a part of the administrative record files at City offices.