The creeks discussed above are “losing creeks,” meaning they are not recharged by groundwater.
Consequently, they are intermittent and generally flow during the winter wet-weather season and from irrigation runoff during the dry months.
Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
San Carlos is mostly developed with roads and buildings and therefore wildlife movement opportunity is generally limited within the City. Reptiles and amphibians, birds, and mammals adapted to urban areas may move locally through the City, but there are no established wildlife corridors and the movement of large mammals and species sensitive to human disturbance is very limited. Creeks within the City may provide movement opportunities for aquatic species, but road culverts may constitute at least partial movement barriers, and the creeks are generally surrounded
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 276
Source: USFWS, City of San Carlos, Urban Footprint, MIG, 2022 Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands and Waterbodies
National Wetlands Inventory
■ Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
■ Freshwater Emergent Wetland
■ Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
■ Freshwater Pond
Lake
Ri erine
Base Map Features
D Crty of San Carlos
■ I Sphere of Influence
- Streets
-=!=Railroad
Redwood City
~ --
...
NORTH 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 277
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
by development which limits movement in surrounding upland area (for amphibians and reptiles).
Many of the City’s creeks are intermittent which could also limit the movement of aquatic species.
There are no known wildlife nursery sites in San Carlos, such as colonial bird nesting sites or anadromous fish spawning streams.
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, provides the regulatory framework for the protection of plant and animal species (and their associated critical habitats), which are formally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under FESA. FESA has the following four primary components: (1) provisions for listing species, (2) requirements for consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), (3) prohibitions against “taking” (i.e., harassing, harming, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct) of listed species, and (4) provisions for permits that allow incidental “take”. FESA also discusses recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species.
Both the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries share the responsibility for administration of FESA.
Section 7 requires federal agencies, in consultation with, and with the assistance of the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. Non-federal agencies and private entities can seek authorization for take of federally listed species under Section 10 of FESA, which requires the preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP).
U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC §§ 703 et seq., Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 10) states it is “unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or in part, of any such bird or any part, nest or egg thereof…” In short, under MBTA it is illegal to disturb a nest that is in active use, since this could result in killing a bird, destroying a nest, or destroying an egg. The USFWS enforces MBTA. The MBTA does not protect some birds that are non-native or human-introduced or that belong to families that are not covered by any of the conventions implemented by MBTA.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 278
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-11 October 2022
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law regulating water quality. The implementation of the CWA is the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, the EPA depends on other agencies, such as the individual states and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to assist in implementing the CWA. The objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Section 404 and 401 of the CWA apply to activities that would impact waters of the U.S.
The USACE enforces Section 404 of the CWA and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) enforces Section 401. Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the EPA to regulate water quality in California by controlling the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources.
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 defines endangered, threatened, and rare species for purposes of CEQA and clarifies that CEQA review extends to other species that are not formally listed under the state or federal Endangered Species acts but that meet specified criteria. The state maintains a list of sensitive, or “special-status,” biological resources, including those listed by the state or federal government or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as endangered, threatened, rare or of special concern due to declining populations. During CEQA analysis for a proposed project, the CNDDB is usually consulted. CNDDB relies on information provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS, and CNPS, among others. Under CEQA, the lists kept by these and any other widely recognized organizations are considered when determining the impact of a project.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) generally parallels FESA. It establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or by the regulations. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” This definition differs from the definition of “take” under FESA. CESA is administered by CDFW. CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful projects but mandates that State lead agencies consult with the CDFW to ensure that a project would not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species.
Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was created in 1977 with the intent to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered plants in California (California Fish and Game Code sections
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 279
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
1900 to 1913). The NPPA is administered by CDFW, which has the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to protect them from “take.” CDFW maintains a list of plant species that have been officially classified as endangered, threatened, or rare. These special-status plants have special protection under California law and projects that directly impact them may not qualify for a categorical exemption under CEQA guidelines.
Other Sensitive Plants – California Native Plant Society.
The CNPS is a non-profit plant conservation organization that publishes and maintains an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California in both hard copy and electronic version (http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/).
The Inventory assigns plants to the following categories:
1A. Presumed extinct in California;
1B. Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;
2. Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere;
3. Plants for which more information is needed – A review list; and
4. Plants of limited distribution – A watch list.
Additional endangerment codes are assigned to each taxon as follows:
1. Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree of immediacy of threat).
2. Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened).
3. Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).
Plants that are Rank 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualify for listing by the CDFW, as well as other state agencies (e.g., California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). As part of the CEQA process, such species should be fully considered, as they meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the NPPA and Sections 2062 and 2067 of the California Fish and Game Code. California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 species are considered to be plants about which more information is needed or are uncommon enough that their status should be regularly monitored. Such plants may be eligible or may become eligible for state listing, and CNPS and CDFW recommend that these species be evaluated for consideration during the preparation of CEQA documents.
Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern
The classification of California fully protected (CFP) species was the CDFW’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 280
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-13 October 2022
extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (§5515 for fish, §5050 for amphibian and reptiles, §3511 for birds, §4700 for mammals) deal with CFP species and state that these species “…may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species” (CDFW Fish and Game Commission 1998). “Take” of these species may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the CFP designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the “take” of these species.
In 2003, the code sections dealing with CFP species were amended to allow the CDFW to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species.
California species of special concern (CSSC) are broadly defined as animals not listed under FESA or CESA, but which are nonetheless of concern to CDFW because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by CDFW, land managers, consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and CESA, and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA during project review.
Nesting Birds
Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Passerines and non-passerine land birds are further protected under California Fish and Game Code 3513. As such, CDFW typically recommends surveys for nesting birds that could potentially be directly (e.g., actual removal of trees/vegetation) or indirectly (e.g., noise disturbance) impacted by project-related activities. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW.
Non-Game Mammals
Sections 4150-4155 of the California Fish and Game Code protects non-game mammals, including bats. Section 4150 states “A mammal occurring naturally in California that is not a game mammal, fully protected mammal, or fur-bearing mammal is a nongame mammal. A non-game mammal
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 281
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
may not be taken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission.” The non-game mammals that may be taken or possessed are primarily those that cause crop or property damage. Bats are classified as a non-game mammal and are protected under California Fish and Game Code, in addition to being protected if they are a listed species (e.g., CSSC, CFP, state or federal threatened, or state or federal endangered).
Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Sensitive vegetation communities are natural communities and habitats that are either unique in constituent components, of relatively limited distribution in the region, or are of particularly high wildlife value. These communities may or may not necessarily contain special-status species.
Sensitive natural communities are usually identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW (i.e., CNDDB) or the USFWS. The CNDDB identifies a number of natural communities as rare, which are given the highest inventory priority (Holland 1986; CDFW 2016). Impacts to sensitive natural communities and habitats must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G).
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1607
Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code require that a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration application be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW reviews the proposed actions in the application and, if necessary, prepares a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA or SAA), that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The intent of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) is to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water, and it applies to both surface and ground water. Under this law, the State Water Resources Control Board develops statewide water quality plans, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) develop basin plans, which identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation plans. The RWQCBs have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions of both statewide and basin plans. Waters regulated under Porter-Cologne, referred to as “waters of the State,” include isolated waters that are not regulated by the USACE. Projects that require a USACE permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification Program. If a proposed project does not require a federal license or permit, any person discharging, or proposing to discharge, waste (e.g., soil) to waters of the State must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) or a Report of Waste Discharge and receive either waste discharge requirements (WDRs) or a waiver to WDRs before beginning the discharge.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 282
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-15 October 2022
Local
City of San Carlos 2030 General Plan
The Environmental Management Element in the City’s General Plan contains the following goals and policies to protect biological resources:
Goal EM-1: Protect natural habitat and other biological resources.
Policy EM-1.1: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development project applications.
Policy EM-1.2: Ensure that development is consistent with all federal, State and regional regulations for habitat and species protection.
Policy EM-1.3: Work to manage or eliminate nonnative invasive species from City-owned property and open space.
Policy EM-1.4: Protect and preserve the circadian cycle (the cycle of night and day) by limiting sources of light during nighttime hours.
Policy EM-1.5: Promote the preservation of native species, habitat and vegetation types and overall natural diversity.
Goal EM-2: Promote healthy streams and riparian corridors.
Policy EM-2.1: Preserve and enhance riparian areas.
Policy EM-2.2: Continue to enforce the City’s Riparian Ordinance for all four of the City’s creeks (Pulgas, Brittan, Cordilleras and Belmont) and their tributaries.
Policy EM-2.3: Carefully evaluate the cumulative and compounding impacts of incremental creek encroachments.
Policy EM-2.4: Restore culverted or buried channels to their natural state wherever feasible.
Policy EM-2.5: Promote the establishment of native vegetation and the removal of nonnative invasive plants in riparian areas.
Policy EM-2.6: Encourage property owners to replace fallen trees along waterways to maintain an upper canopy of vegetation. The species shall be as approved by the City arborist.
Encourage use of trees native to the area.
Policy EM-2.7: Retain Pulgas, Brittan, Cordilleras and Belmont Creek channels and their 100- year floodplains wherever possible as natural open space areas. These areas are to function as storm drainage facilities and as open space greenbelts to support natural habitat.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 283
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Policy EM-2.8: Participate and help coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions’ watershed management efforts.
Goal EM-3: Enhance the urban forest.
Policy EM-3.1: Maintain and expand the urban canopy with special emphasis on protection of heritage trees.
Policy EM-3.2: Review and amend the Zoning Ordinance as needed to identify barriers to the effective enhancement of the urban forest and the protection of heritage trees.
Policy EM-3.3: Assist community groups with tree planning efforts.
City of San Carlos Tree Ordinance
Section 18.18.070(B) of the San Carlos Municipal Code defines a “Protected tree” to be any significant or heritage tree, described below. Section 18.18.070 (D) of the San Carlos Municipal Code states no protected trees can be removed, pruned, or otherwise materially altered without a permit. Trimming of a protected tree is allowed without such a permit. Section 18.18.070 (D) also contains requirements to avoid construction-related impacts to retained protected trees, such as special measures for any construction activity within the dripline of a protected tree.
Heritage Tree - “Heritage tree” means any:
a. Indigenous tree whose size, as measured at fifty-four inches (54”) above natural grade (unless otherwise indicated), is defined below:
i. Aesculus californica (buckeye) with a single stem or multiple stems touching each other at fifty-four inches (54”) above natural grade and measuring nine inches (9”) in diameter or greater.
ii. Arbutus meniesii (madrone) with a single stem or multiple stems touching each other at fifty-four inches (54”) above natural grade and measuring nine inches (9”) in diameter or greater.
iii. Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) measuring nine inches (9”) in diameter or greater. iv. Quercus lobata (valley oak) measuring nine inches (9”) in diameter or greater. v. Quercus douglassii (blue oak) measuring nine inches (9”) in diameter or greater. vi. Quercus wislizneii (interior live oak) measuring nine inches (9”) in diameter or greater. vii. Sequoia sempervirens (redwood) measuring fifteen inches (15”) in diameter or greater.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 284
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-17 October 2022
viii. Umbrellularia californica (California bay laurel) with a single stem or multiple stems touching each other at fifty-four inches (54”) above natural grade and measuring eleven inches (11”) in diameter or greater.
Heritage Tree Species
Minimum
Protected
Diameter
Aesculus californica
(buckeye)
9" diameter or
greater
Arbutus menziesii
(madrone)
9" diameter or
greater
Quercus agrifolia (coast
live oak)
9" diameter or
greater
Quercus lobata (valley
oak)
9" diameter or
greater
Quercus douglassii (blue
oak)
9" diameter or
greater
Quercus wislizneii
(interior live oak)
9" diameter or
greater
Sequoia sempervirens
(redwood)
15" diameter
or greater
Umbellularia californica
(California bay laurel)
11" diameter
or greater
b. Community of trees;
c. Tree so designated by the City Council, based upon findings that the particular tree is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual age, appearance, location or other factors.
Significant Tree – “Significant tree” means any tree that is eleven inches (11”) in diameter (or more), outside of bark, measured at fifty-four inches (54”) above natural grade. The following trees shall not be classified as significant or heritage trees regardless of size:
a. Bailey, Green or Black Acacia: A. baileyana, A. dedurrens or A. melanoxylon; b. Tree of Heaven: Ailianthus altissima;
c. Fruit trees of any kind;
d. Monterey Pine: Pinus radiata;
e. Eucalyptus genera;
f. Monocot trees including palms and palm relatives.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 285
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-18 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance Chapter 18.14 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code provides protection for waterways by establishing regulations for development adjacent to creeks. Section 18.14.030 Stream setback requirements requires all new development to be set back a minimum twenty-five feet from the top of bank line or such other distance as specified by the Planning Commission. Additionally,
18.14.040 Dedication of drainage and scenic easements states the City may, as a condition of a development permit or subdivision, require the dedication of a drainage and/or scenic easement over and maintenance, in its natural condition or existing state, of each stream channel within the top of each bank or such other distance as specified by the review authority to avoid excavation, filling, development or construction that could adversely affect the public health and safety by aggravating drainage flows during flooding conditions or interfering with the streamside habitat. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011).
Chapter 18.14 identifies the following activities as allowed within 25 feet of a creek related to storm drainage, erosion control, and streambank stability improvements that comply with the following standards and have been approved, as required by law, by the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over them:
• Vegetation shall not be cut or removed except for normal maintenance, to facilitate drainage, prevent flooding, and to permit adequate flow of water. Removal of vegetation shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary, with special care to avoid removal of vegetation immediately adjacent to the banks of the stream. • Fill, grading, or excavating for purposes of low intensity, passive recreation or conservation uses may be allowed with conditional use permit approval. Such activities shall be kept to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish its aims and designed and executed so as to minimize erosion, sedimentation or runoff in or into the stream channel. • Minor restoration or maintenance necessary to prevent flooding, reduce siltation, remove debris, and minor weed abatement activity necessary to protect life or property or otherwise provide for the public health and safety may be approved by the City.
4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
Potential impacts to biological resources were determined in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts would be considered potentially significant if the proposed project will:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 286
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-19 October 2022
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact BIO-1: The project would not have a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species listed as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Updated Housing Element
Development of new housing sites proposed in the San Carlos updated Housing Element could impact special-status species, nesting birds, and/or roosting bats, as described below. No significant impacts would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO3.
Special-Status Species - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Most of the San Carlos 6th cycle sites for housing development are in developed areas along El Camino Real or the downtown area of the City. There is no habitat for special-status species in developed areas, and therefore new housing in developed areas would not impact special-status species.
There are a small number of 6th cycle housing sites on or adjacent to natural habitat, such as riparian corridors or oak woodland. Housing sites on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat (i.e., streams, wetlands, marsh, etc.) have the potential to support special-status species with the potential to occur in San Carlos (see Table 4.3-1 in Section 4.3.1 Existing Setting above). As such, -
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 287
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-20 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
new housing on sites on or adjacent to natural habitat could cause direct impacts to special-status species, such as mortality or injury during construction and/or loss of habitat due to housing development. Indirect impacts due to noise and disturbance from construction activities and later housing occupancy could also occur, resulting in stress or mortality to special-status species, local extirpation (plants), or causing them to go elsewhere (animals). Chapter 18.14 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code requires a 25-foot creek setback for any housing adjacent to a creek.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would further prevent significant impacts to special-status species from new housing on sites with natural habitat.
Nesting Birds - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Even developed areas in San Carlos contain trees, other vegetation, and manmade structures that provide habitat for nesting birds. All native birds and their nests are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. No significant long-term impacts to nesting birds are expected from the proposed updated Housing Element. Loss of nesting habitat due to construction-related removal of trees and other vegetation would occur only in small sites in urban areas and would be largely offset by the San Carlos Tree Ordinance (Section 18.18.070 (D)) and landscaping for the new housing.
However, short-term impacts to nesting birds could occur during construction of new housing. If construction of new housing occurs during the bird nesting season, it could directly impact nesting birds through the accidental removal of nests during tree removal, demolition, and site preparation activities. In addition, indirect impacts from construction noise and activity could result in nest failure or abandonment. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would prevent significant impacts to nesting birds during construction of new housing.
Roosting Bats - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Trees and vacant buildings can provide roosting habitat for bats, particularly near creeks or other freshwater habitat and away from significant human activity. Bats are protected by the California Fish and Game Code as nongame mammals. No significant long-term impacts to roosting bats are expected from the proposed updated Housing Element. The San Carlos Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Section
18.18.070 (D)) and Stream Development Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section
18.14.010) would help to protect bat roosting habitat in San Carlos. In addition, most trees and structures that would be removed for new housing would be in developed areas and would likely provide little to no suitable bat roosting habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would prevent significant impacts to roosting bat habitat in areas with natural vegetation or aquatic habitat.
Short-term impacts to roosting bats could occur during construction of new housing. Removal of trees or structures for new housing could directly impact roosting bats by accidentally killing them or forcibly evicting them in daylight hours, resulting is severe stress or mortality. Indirect impacts could also occur if construction noise and activity occur adjacent to roosting bats. Special-status bats and maternity roosts are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would prevent significant impacts to roosting bats during construction of new housing.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 288
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-21 October 2022
Updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element Potential impacts on special-status species from the goals, policies, and actions in the proposed Environmental Safety and Community Services Element are discussed below. The impact analysis is organized by hazard type and associated goals, policies, and actions, in the same order they appear in the updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards Goals, Policies, and Actions - No Impact.
Goal ESCS-1: Reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to seismic and geologic hazards.
Goal ESCS-1 and associated policies and actions relate to identifying and mitigating geologic hazards within San Carlos, development project sites, and existing buildings. None of the goals, policies, or actions related to geologic and seismic hazards would impact special-status species or other biological resources.
Flood Hazards Goals, Policies, and Actions - Less Than Significant Impact.
Goal ESCS-2: Reduce hazards associated with flooding, inundation, and sea level rise.
Some of the flood hazards policies and actions would have a beneficial effect on special-status species and other biological resources, including the following:
• Policy ESCS-2.2: Prioritizes maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian corridors on creeks in San Carlos.
• Policy ESCS-2.3: Maintains the Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance. • Policy ESCS-2.4: Minimizes impervious surface areas.
• Policy ESCS-2.6: Promotes training City staff on relationship between watershed health and flood hazards.
• Policy ESCS-2.12: Incorporates storm water drainage systems into development projects, which prevents polluted runoff water from entering creeks. • Action ESCS-2.1: Participation in a regional Watershed Management Plan than includes creek restoration.
• Action ESCS-2.2: Strengthens Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance. • Actions ESCS-2.4 & 2.5: Encourages property owners adjacent to creeks to use natural or bio-engineering methods to stabilize creek banks.
Creek restoration and creek bank stabilization projects would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA and would also likely require a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and possibly permits from the USACE and RWQCB under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Any future improvements to the City’s storm drain infrastructure (see Policy ESCS-2.12) would be evaluated under CEQA on a project-specific basis, but are not generally expected to
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 289
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-22 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
significantly impact biological resources. All remaining flood hazard policies and actions relate to planning and coordination with other agencies and would have no impact on biological resources.
Wildfire Hazards - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Goal 1: A resilient San Carlos is well prepared to minimize risks associated with wildfire.
Goal 2: San Carlos proactively prevents wildfires and protects life, property, and infrastructure from urban and wildfire impacts.
Wildfire hazard goals and associated policies and actions are designed to reduce risks of wildfire to people and the built environment in San Carlos. Many of the policies and actions relate to planning for wildfires, evacuation routes, fire safe building practices, and public outreach and do not impact biological resources. The wildfire Land Use Planning Policies are largely beneficial to biological resources by encouraging the preservation of undeveloped ridgelines, encouraging infill and clustered development, and discouraging development in high fire hazard areas where natural vegetation is concentrated. Agency Coordination Action 3 would have beneficial effects to specialstatus species and sensitive habitats because it encourages native plants, vegetation thinning which reduces the risk of hotter fires killing native vegetation, and fuel breaks that don’t damage native habitat.
However, vegetation thinning, and creation of fuel breaks has the potential to temporarily impact special-status species, nesting birds, and/or roosting bats directly by removing rare plants, woodrat houses, bird nests, or bat roosts, or indirectly by disturbing special-status species, nesting birds and/or roosting bats in the work area. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would prevent short-term impacts to special-status species, nesting birds and roosting bats from vegetation thinning and creation of fuel breaks. No significant long-term impacts to special-status species, nesting birds or roosting bats are expected from these activities, as no largescale conversion or removal of native vegetation would occur and habitat for these species would remain largely intact.
Any future construction of new fire service facilities, emergency vehicle access routes, or water infrastructure for firefighting purposes would require project specific CEQA review, but such projects are not generally expected to significantly impact biological resources.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Goals, Policies, and Actions - Less Than Significant Impact.
Goal ESCS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.
Goal ESCS-5 and associated policies and actions related to hazardous materials and waste have largely beneficial effects to special-status species and other biological resources as they encourage proper storage, containment, disposal, and remediation of hazardous materials and waste. This prevents hazardous materials from being released into the environment, where they could cause harm to special-status species and other biological resources.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 290
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-23 October 2022
Airport Operations Goals, Policies, and Actions - No Impact.
Goal ESCS-6: Minimize risks associated with operations at the San Carlos Airport.
This section of the updated Safety Element contains Goals, Policies, and Actions regarding land use compatibility in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport. There would be no impacts to biological resources from this goal and associated policies and actions.
Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Goals, Policies, and Actions - No Impact.
Goal ESCS-7: Continue effective emergency response procedures to ensure public safety in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Goal ESCS-7 and associated policies and actions relate to planning, coordination, and public education to prepare for emergencies and disasters. There would be no impacts to biological resources from this goal and associated policies and actions.
Climate Change Resilience Goals, Policies, and Actions - Less Than Significant Impact.
Goal ESCS-8: A community that is resilient against changing climate conditions.
Goal ESCS-8 and associated policies and actions are mostly planning, coordination, and community outreach for climate change resilience. This goal and associated policies and actions would not generally impact special-status species or other biological resources. Installation of additional or upgraded communications facilities (see Action ESCS-8.5b), and major building retrofits (see Policy ESCS-8.2 and Action ESCS-8.2b), would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA, but are not generally expected to significantly impact biological resources.
Goal ESCS-9: The City of San Carlos has a sustainable and resilient water supply despite the potential for more frequent and severe drought conditions.
Goal ESCS-9 and associated policies and actions relate to increasing water storage capacity and conserving water. This goal and associated policies and actions are not generally expected to impact special-status species or other biological resources. Any future projects to increase water storage capacity (see Policy ESCS-9.1 and Action ESCS-9.1a), upgrade waste and wastewater systems (see Action ESCS-9.1b) or extend recycled water pipes (see Action ESCS-9.2e) would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA but are not generally expected to significantly impact biological resources. Policies and actions to conserve water could potentially benefit aquatic special-status species and their habitat by conserving more water for creeks and natural waterbodies.
Goal ESCS-10: Create a community that is resilient during and after extreme heat and severe weather events.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 291
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-24 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Goal ESCS-10 and associated policies and actions relate to provision of public information and emergency shelters or cooling hubs, and upgrades to infrastructure for heat resilience. This goal and associated policies and actions are not generally expected to impact special-status species or other biological resources. Any future projects to construct emergency shelters or cooling centers (see Policy ESCS-10.2 and Actions ESCS-10.1a and 10.1b) or improve utility or transportation infrastructure (see Policy ESCS-10.4 and Action ESCS-10.4b) would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA, but are not generally expected to significantly impact biological resources.
Goal ESCS-11: Protect the community against sea level rise and safeguard the natural and built environment from inundation due to rising sea levels.
Goal ESCS-11 and associated policies and actions pertain to planning for and adaptation to sea level rise. Policy ESCS-11.2 and Actions ESCS-11.2a through 11.2c would have a beneficial effect on special-status species and other biological resources near the Bayshore because they promote nature-based approaches to sea level rise adaptation such as bioswales, restored natural systems, and living shorelines. Relocation of critical facilities outside of sea level rise zones (see Policy ESCS-11.3 and Action ESCS-11.3a) would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA but is not expected to significantly impact biological resources. The remaining policies and actions involve planning and coordination and would not impact biological resources.
Goal ESCS-12: Protect the community against rising groundwater levels caused by sea level rise.
Goal ESCS-12 and associated policies and actions involve planning and updates to the Municipal Code related to rising groundwater levels caused by sea level rise. This goal and associated policies and actions would not impact special-status species or other biological resources.
Public Services Goals, Policies, and Actions- Less Than Significant Impact Goal ESCS-13: Ensure adequate public services and high quality design of public facilities to make San Carlos a safe, enjoyable, and quality community in which to live, work and shop.
Goal ESCS-14: Provide educational opportunities for all ages.
Goal ESCS-15: Establish San Carlos’ position as a community cultural and arts center.
Goal ESCS-16: Promote community building activities in San Carlos.
Goals ESCS-12 through ESCS-16 and associated policies and actions relate to provision of public facilities and services in San Carlos. Policy ESCS-13.3 has a beneficial effect on biological resources because it encourages the use of native plants and trees in landscaping. Redevelopment of school sites (see Policy ESCS-13.5), construction of new public facilities (see Policy ESCS13.9 and Action ESCS-13.2), construction of new schools (see Actions ESCS-14.1 and 14.2), or a new performing art center (see Actions ESCS-15.4 and 15.5) would require project-specific
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 292
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-25 October 2022
evaluation under CEQA, but are not generally expected to significantly impact biological resources because they would likely be constructed in developed areas that lack special-status species habitat and other sensitive habitats. The remaining public services policies and actions involve planning, coordination, and administration and would have no impact on biological resources.
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures would avoid significant impacts to special-status species from the proposed updated Housing Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Project-Specific Biological Resources Evaluation: Prior to construction of new housing on sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat, and/or vegetation thinning or creation of fuel breaks, a project-specific biological resources evaluation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall utilize relevant resources such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as well as a field survey covering the project site and adjacent areas. A biological resources report or memo shall be prepared documenting the results of the evaluation, to a level of detail appropriate for the project. At a minimum, the report or memo shall include a description of existing vegetation, habitats, and aquatic features on the project site; an evaluation of special-status species and sensitive habitats that could occur on the site; and suitable mitigation measures as needed to avoid project-related impacts to biological resources. Mitigation measures from the biological resources evaluation shall be incorporated into the CEQA document for the project and/or adopted as project conditions of approval.
Applies To: New housing development on sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat, vegetation thinning and creation of fuel breaks.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Nesting Birds: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and avoid potential violation of state and federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction of new housing (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) and/or vegetation thinning and creation of fuel breaks should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after September 15) if possible. If construction and/or vegetation thinning or creation of fuel breaks occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to September 15), all suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance including staging and storage areas plus a 250-foot (passerines) and 1,000-foot (raptor nests) buffer around these areas shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 293
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-26 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), shall take place within 250 feet of non-raptor nests and 1,000 feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.
Applies To: All housing construction and/or vegetation thinning and creation of fuel breaks during the nesting bird season (February 1 through September 15).
Mitigation Measure BIO-3a. Bat Habitat Assessment: Prior to removal of trees or structures for housing development or fire hazard reduction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment of trees and structures to be removed, as well as surrounding trees and structures. The biologist shall search for large cavities and crevices in trees and structures that could support maternity roosts as well as habitat for special-status bat species. Signs of bats such as guano or the smell of bats shall also be noted. Results of the bat habitat assessment shall be documented.
If no suitable roosting habitat or signs of bats are found, then no further action is required, and the project may proceed as planned. If suitable roosting habitat or signs of bats are found, then Mitigation Measure 3b shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3b. Dusk Emergence Bat Survey: If suitable roosting habitat or signs of bats are found in trees or structures to be removed on a new housing site or fire fuel reduction area, a qualified biologist shall conduct a dusk emergence survey for roosting bats within 14 days prior to the removal of the tree(s) or structure(s). The biologist shall monitor all suitable roosting trees and structures at dusk for emerging bats, using acoustic equipment to identify the species. Results of the survey shall be documented.
If no roosting bats are found during the survey, then no further action is required, and the project may proceed as planned. If roosting bats are found during the survey, a disturbancefree buffer zone shall be established around the roost site during the maternity season (April 15-September 15), as determined by a qualified biologist until the maternity season is over.
Outside the maternity season, roosting bats may be excluded from the tree(s) or structure(s) prior to tree removal as directed by a qualified biologist. If a special-status bat is found, the roosting site shall be preserved if feasible and CDFW shall be consulted prior to exclusion.
Applies To: Any housing project or fuel reduction project that requires removal of trees or structures.
Impact BIO-2: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 294
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-27 October 2022
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Housing Element- Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Most of the San Carlos 6th cycle sites for housing development are in developed areas along El Camino Real that do not have riparian or other sensitive habitats. However, a small number of sites are within or adjacent to riparian habitat (Pulgas Creek, Brittan Creek, or Belmont Creek) or other sensitive habitat. San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section
18.14) prohibits most development within 25 feet of a stream, including housing. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a project specific biological resources evaluation for sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat, which would include riparian habitat and other sensitive habitats. The biological resources evaluation would include site-specific mitigation to protect riparian and other sensitive habitat as needed. The proposed updated Housing Element would not significantly impact riparian or other sensitive habitat with compliance with the San Carlos Municipal Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Safety Element - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Potential impacts to riparian and other sensitive habitats from the proposed updated Safety Element are similar to potential impacts to special-status species; see the detailed analysis in the section above. All potential impacts to riparian and other sensitive habitats would be less than significant except for possibly vegetation thinning and creation of fuel breaks for fire hazard reduction. Vegetation thinning and fuel break creation is not generally expected to occur in riparian areas, which are protected by the San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.14) and generally have lower fire hazards due to the presence of the streams. However, other sensitive habitats such as special-status species habitats could be impacted by fuel reduction activities if such habitat is removed or disturbed during vegetation thinning or removal for fuel breaks. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would prevent impacts to sensitive habitats from fuel reduction activities.
Mitigation Measures. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the previous section.
Impact BIO-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Updated Housing Element - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Federally and state protected wetlands in San Carlos are generally limited to marsh habitat and sloughs along the Bayshore at the eastern border of the City. None of the proposed 6th Cycle housing sites are located along the Bayshore where protected wetlands occur. Most of the housing sites are already developed, and the vacant sites are generally small and surrounded by development. Therefore, the sites do not generally contain or support protected wetlands. According to the National
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 295
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-28 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Wetlands Inventory, there is one freshwater pond mapped along El Camino Real northwest of San Carlos Avenue where some housing sites are located (NWI 2022). However, it is clear from recent aerial photos that this area is developed and no freshwater pond is currently present at this location.
For these reasons, the proposed updated Housing Element is not expected to impact federally or state protected wetlands.
San Carlos does contain creeks, and in some places, associated riparian habitat. Creeks are also protected by the federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Colgne Act, and creeks and riparian habitat are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.14) prohibits most development within 25 feet of a stream, including housing. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO1 requires a project specific biological resources evaluation for sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat, which would include creeks and riparian habitat. The biological resources evaluation would include site-specific mitigation to protect creeks and riparian habitat as needed. The proposed updated Housing Element would not significantly impact protected creeks or riparian habitat with compliance with the San Carlos Municipal Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Environmental Safety and Community Services Element - Less Than Significant Impact.
Potential impacts protected wetlands and waters from the proposed updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element are similar to potential impacts to special-status species; see the detailed analysis in the section above. All potential impacts to special-status species were found to be less than significant except for vegetation thinning and creation of fuel breaks for fire hazard reduction. Vegetation thinning and fuel break creation is not generally expected to occur in protected wetlands (mostly concentrated on the Bayshore) or other protected waters such as streams and associated riparian habitat. Streams and riparian habitat are protected by the San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.14) and generally have lower fire hazards due to the presence of water. Therefore, the proposed updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element is not expected to significantly impact protected wetlands and waters.
Mitigation Measures. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the special-status species section above.
Impact BIO-4: The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant wit Mitigation Incorporated)
Housing Element - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. All of the proposed 6 th Cycle housing sites are developed and/or small vacant lots surrounded by development except for a few sites near Devonshire Canyon. Therefore, the proposed updated Housing Element is not generally expected to impact wildlife movement or nursery sites. San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.14) prohibits most development within
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 296
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-29 October 2022
25 feet of a stream, including housing, which would protect movement corridors for aquatic species. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a project specific biological resources evaluation for sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat. The biological resources evaluation would address wildlife movement and nursery sites if applicable and include site-specific mitigation as needed. The proposed updated Housing Element would not significantly impact wildlife movement and nursery sites with compliance with the San Carlos Municipal Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
San Carlos and the entire western United States is within the Pacific Flyway migratory path for many bird species. Windows and glass doors in new buildings, including housing, have the potential to pose a hazard to migratory birds. Birds cannot see clear glass and as a result can fly into glass surfaces in buildings, resulting in injury or death. Buildings near water bodies or open space pose the greatest hazards to migratory birds. As most of the proposed 6th Cycle housing sites are developed and/or small vacant lots surrounded by development, and most are not near a water body, the risk to migratory birds from the new housing is generally expected to be low. The new housing sites are in an urban area with many existing buildings, and thus the risks from glass surfaces in new housing would be similar to existing conditions in the project area. Even with the allowed increase in height to six stories for multi-family residential buildings, the risk to migratory birds is expected to be low because of building design. Multi-family apartment buildings and single-family houses generally contain relatively small areas of glass surfaces compared to large office or industrial buildings, which pose greater hazards to birds. For these reasons, the proposed updated Housing Element would not significantly impact migratory birds due to hazards posed by glass surfaces in the new housing. Individual housing projects would undergo CEQA review and would be evaluated for bird strike risk based on project location and building design.
Environmental Safety and Community Services Element - Less Than Significant Impact.
Any future development related to the updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element policies and actions would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA and would generally be in developed areas with limited wildlife movement opportunities and no wildlife nursery sites. Some projects such as creek or stream drainage improvements or sea level rise projects could be in areas used by wildlife for movement corridors or nursery sites. All projects would be designed and constructed in accordance with City of San Carlos policies and other regional and state agency requirements and mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the proposed updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element is not expected to significantly impact wildlife movement or nursery sites.
Mitigation Measures. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1, above.
Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant wit Mitigation Incorporated)
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 297
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-30 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Housing Element - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The San Carlos General Plan contains goals and policies protecting natural habitat and other biological resources, streams and riparian habitat, and the urban forest (see Section 4.3.2 Regulatory Setting above, under Local Regulations). Most of the proposed 6th Cycle housing sites are developed and/or small vacant lots surrounded by development, and most housing sites do not contain sensitive biological resources. In addition, all housing projects would have to comply with the City of San Carlos Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.18), which requires a permit for removal of protected trees and has standards for protecting retained trees during construction. Housing projects near streams would also have to comply with the San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.14), which prohibits most development within 25 feet of a stream, including housing. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a project specific biological resources evaluation for housing sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat. The biological resources evaluation would address sensitive biological resources and include sitespecific mitigation as needed. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would prevent significant impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats, respectively, from new housing projects. With compliance with the San Carlos Municipal Code and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO1 through BIO-3, the proposed updated Housing Element would not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources.
Environmental Safety and Community Services Element- Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The San Carlos General Plan contains goals and policies protecting natural habitat and other biological resources, streams and riparian habitat, and the urban forest (see Section 4.3.2 Regulatory Setting above, under Local Regulations). The proposed updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element was developed to be compatible with the other elements existing San Carlos General Plan. Any future projects undertaken because of updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element policies and actions would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA. Some projects such as creek or stream drainage improvements or sea level rise projects could be in areas with sensitive biological resources and wetlands. All projects would be designed and constructed in accordance with City of San Carlos policies and other regional and state agency requirements and mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive biological resources.
Additionally, all projects would have to comply with the City of San Carlos Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.18), which requires a permit for removal of protected trees and has standards for protecting retained trees during construction. Development projects near streams would also have to comply with the San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.14), which prohibits most development within 25 feet of a stream.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would prevent impacts to biological resources from fuel reduction activities (see Agency Coordination Action 3 in the Wildfire Hazard section of the updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element). For these reasons, the proposed updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element would not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 298
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.3-31 October 2022
Mitigation Measures. See Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 in the special-status species section above.
Impact BIO-6: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact) The Master Plan for Edgewood Park and Natural Reserve, adopted in 1997, designates sensitive habitats in the park as natural preserves. The County Park abuts the southern tip of San Carlos.
None of the proposed 6th Cycle housing sites are near Edgewood Park. Any future development related to the updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element policies and actions would require project-specific evaluation under CEQA and is not expected to occur near Edgewood Park. No other habitat conservation plans apply to the project area. Therefore, the proposed updated Housing Element and updated Environmental Safety and Community Services Element would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
4.3.5 References
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2021. Results of electronic records search.
Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2021 from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp City of San Carlos. 2009. San Carlos 2030 General Plan. Adopted October 12, 2009. ______. 2021. San Carlos Municipal Code. Accessed December 27, 2021. Available at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/
Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, Tukman Geospatial LLC, Aerial Information Systems, National Park Service, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, County of San Mateo, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Peninsula Open Space Trust, San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. 2022 (March 30). San Mateo Fine Scale Vegetation Map.
Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/san-mateo-fine-scale-vegetationmap-complete.htm National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2022. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper.
Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlandsmapper
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 299
Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-32 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 300
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-1
October 2022
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section addresses the project’s potential impacts on historic, archaeological, cultural, and tribal cultural resources and recommends mitigation measures as appropriate.
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The first known human inhabitants of the San Carlos area were the Ohlone, who were also known as the Costanoans. The Ohlones were hunters and gatherers, living in “tribelets” – small independent groups of usually related families occupying a specific territory and speaking the same language or dialect (Levy 1987; NWIC). Historians believe that two sub-tribes existed in and around San Carlos, the Salson to the north of Belmont Creek and Lhamshin around the greater San Carlos area. Spanish settlement of the area, beginning in 1769, led to the dispersal of the tribes to the Spanish missions and eventually the disappearance of the Ohlone as a cultural group.
The first Europeans to reach the San Francisco area were Spanish explorers in 1769 as part of the Portolá expedition. In 1774, the de Anza expedition had set out to convert the Native American tribes to Christianity, and colonization of the San Francisco Bay Area accelerated in 1776 with the establishment of the Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores) and Mission Santa Clara de Asis in 1777. By the 1790s, the mission and other San Francisco establishments were being supported by small farms as far south as San Mateo. To encourage further settlement of the area, the Spanish government granted land to retired soldiers and men of influence. Don Jose Dario Arguello, comandante of the presidios at San Francisco and later governor of Alta California, received a 35,000-acre land grant that encompassed what would later become Atherton, Belmont, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos and part of San Mateo. The El Camino Real (which runs through San Carlos) became a heavily traveled route between Mission Dolores and Mission Santa Clara in addition to other missions along the route. This route led to the establishment of inns and roadhouses to serve travelers along the way. In this historic period, the Ohlone people were subjugated and absorbed into the mission system that resulted in the loss of their freedom of movement, their culture, and customs (Cabrillo College 2017).
San Carlos History
What is now San Carlos was part of a land grant issued in 1835, the “Rancho de las Pulgas” (Ranch of the Fleas), which was the largest land grant in the peninsula at 35,420 acres. What was to eventually become San Carlos was bought out of the land grant by an American, Timothy Phelps, as a dairy farm in the 1850s. In 1885 he made plans to develop a town, Phelpsville, but was unsuccessful. He then sold the land in 1887 in order to make way for further development. Three additional attempts were made to develop a town. In 1888 the San Carlos land company tried to subdivide and sell the land once owned by Phelps. Later, in 1907, the San Carlos Park Syndicate attempted to call the area ‘Oak Park’ and engaged on an elaborate sales campaign. Finally, in 1917, Frederick Drake of the Mercantile Trust Company was hired to oversee development of the city and installed gas and electricity to the area as well as improved the existing water infrastructure.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 301
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
By 1918, the first school was built, and the population slowly grew. In 1925 the residents voted for incorporation, and San Carlos was officially born. Drake continued to promote the town and coined the motto "The City of Good Living" (City of San Carlos 2017a; San Mateo County History Museum).
Commercial development followed soon after the establishment of residential neighborhoods.
Support businesses, such as gas stations, grocery stores and a pharmacy were established by 1926 along El Camino Real. Industrial activity also came to San Carlos at this time when Fredrick Drake helped to bring about a Southern Pacific spur track between San Francisco and Sunnyvale. This rail connection led to the creation of the city’s first industrial area, located east of the railroad.
After World War II, the population in San Carlos rapidly expanded, especially after the establishment of the Dalmo Victor and Eitel McCullough electronics plants in 1944. The population quadrupled between 1940 and 1950, largely due to the presence of these two electronics plants. The electronics industry grew and by 1958 it comprised a substantial portion of the industrial area. Also in the late 1940s, the San Carlos Airport moved from its former location between Brittan and San Carlos Avenues to its present site, east of Highway 101.
Additional residential development in areas east of El Camino Real and north and south of Holly Street also occurred at this time. As the city grew in the 1950s, residential growth was focused in the western hills, above Arguello Park and west of both Alameda de las Pulgas and San Carlos Avenue. In 1956, the City annexed 500 acres west of the Alameda so that the area could be subdivided to provide an additional 1,300 homes, including apartments.
In the East Side of San Carlos, growth in the service, supply and electronics industries fueled the City’s economic development. More recently, high-tech and biotechnology firms have contributed to economic growth and transformation in San Carlos. Another recent trend has been the redevelopment of infill parcels with mixed-use and multi-family family housing in areas near Downtown and the El Camino Real transit corridor. Most new industrial development is occurring along the Industrial Road and Old County Road corridors. New multi-family and mixed-use developments are concentrated along or near San Carlos Avenue and west of El Camino Real.
Archaeological and Historic Resources
Native American archaeological sites tend to be located near waterways, as well as along ridge tops, midslope hill terraces, alluvial flats, the base of hills, and where two vegetation communities meet. San Francisco Peninsula’s proximity to both bay and marine resources led to the rapid rise in Native American tribe and tribelet populations. Due to urbanization in San Carlos and San Mateo County, archaeological data are largely missing. However, prehistoric archeological deposits have been recorded near the banks of the Pulgas Creek consisting of mammal bone and chert flakes. A midden site on the banks of the Pulgas Creek was recorded in 1990 and consisted of stone flakes and a possible hammerstone. A majority of this site was destroyed during the construction of San Carlos Avenue and nearby residential development.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 302
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-3
October 2022
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) contain buildings, structures, sites, and objects considered to be of historic significance on the National or State level, respectively. Generally speaking, to be considered eligible for inclusion, buildings, structures and objects need to be 50 years or older. The CRHR allows a greater degree of flexibility in the age criteria, and some resources can be considered historically significance before meeting the age guidelines. The National and California Register contain two buildings of historic significance in the City of San Carlos: the Nathanial Brittan Party House and the Southern Pacific Depot. The City of San Carlos maintains a listing of 52 properties that are of historical significance known as the Historical Resources Inventory.
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Enacted in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C §§ 470 et seq.) declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assist Native American tribes in preserving their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
NHPA establishes the nation’s policy for historic preservation and sets in place a program for the preservation of historic properties by requiring federal agencies to consider effects to significant cultural resources (i.e., historic properties) prior to undertakings.
Section 106 of the Federal Guidelines
Section 106 of the NHPA states that federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally funded, assisted, or licensed undertakings must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP and that the ACHP and SHPO must be afforded an opportunity to comment, through a process outlined in the ACHP regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, on such undertakings.
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history,
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 303
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past.
Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be at least 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 The NAGPRA of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 304
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-5
October 2022
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA provides criteria to evaluate whether a building, structure, object, or site is significant.
Under CEQA Guideline §15064.5(a), historic resources include the following those meeting the criteria listed below.
A. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.)
B. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in §5020.1(K) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
C. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, providing the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
D. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to §5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in §5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(j) or 5024.1. In accordance with CEQA, properties designated
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 305
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
or eligible at all levels are deserving of protection by a lead agency when any undertaking proposes to demolish or alter any such property.
Typically to be considered an historic resource under CEQA, the structure in question must at least be considered eligible for local listing. However, in some cases a structure may be considered ineligible such as after detailed historic or architectural assessment, and thus would no longer be considered an historic resource under CEQA.
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate properties that are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (CA Public Resources Code).” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria (Public Resources Code):
Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.
Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 306
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-7
October 2022
California Historical Landmarks (CHLs)
CHLs are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource must also be approved for designation by the County Board of Supervisors or the City or Town Council in whose jurisdiction it is located, be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, or be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards in use now were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs No. 770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR.
To be eligible for designation as a Landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California); or
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California. A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.
California Points of Historical Interest
California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of Historical Interest (Point or Points) designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point. If a Point is later granted status as a Landmark, the Point designation will be retired. In practice, the Point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance.
To be eligible for designation as a Point, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county).
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area.
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 307
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified.
Native American Heritage Commission, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9–5097.991 Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.9 of the PRC, a state policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies that in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 Codified in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 8010–8030, the California Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA) is consistent with the federal NAGPRA. Intended to “provide a seamless and consistent state policy to ensure that all California Indian human remains, and cultural items be treated with dignity and respect,” the California NAGPRA also encourages and provides a mechanism for the return of remains and cultural items to lineal descendants.
Section 8025 established a Repatriation Oversight Commission to oversee this process. The act also provides a process for non–federally recognized tribes to file claims with agencies and museums for repatriation of human remains and cultural items.
Senate Bill (SB) 18
California Government Code, Section 65352.3 incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s SB18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 308
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-9
October 2022
days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan. As a result of the SB 18 outreach, one Native American Tribe, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, provided a response letter which indicated that if a Sacred Lands File Search and or California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) search reveals positive results within one mile of the project area, they recommend the following:
• All Crews and Individuals who will be moving any earth be Cultural Sensitivity Trained. • A Qualified California Trained Archaeological Monitor be present during any earth movement.
• A Qualified Native American Monitor be present during any earth movement.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52
AB 52 specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 provides for consultation between lead agencies and Native American tribal organizations during the CEQA process. It requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. AB 52 specifies examples of mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to CEQA projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration filed or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC), relating to Native Americans. No Native American tribes have contacted the City under AB 52, and thus no consultation per AB 52 was made with local tribes for this project.
AB 52 amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address California Native American tribal concerns regarding how cultural resources of importance to tribes are treated under CEQA. CEQA now specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a “tribal cultural resource” [as defined in PRC 21074(a)] is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. According to the AB 52, tribes may have expertise in tribal history and “tribal knowledge about land and tribal cultural resources at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources.”
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 309
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
The AB 52 process entails the following:
• The CEQA lead agency must begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation. • A proposed Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Draft EIR cannot be released for public review before the tribe(s) has had the opportunity to request consultation.
• If the tribe(s) requests formal consultation, a MND cannot be released for public review until consultation between the tribe(s) and the lead agency is completed and mitigation measures acceptable to the tribe(s) are incorporated into the MND and the related Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP).
AB 52 further defines the following legislative terms:
Tribal Cultural Resource: The passage of AB 52, created a new category of resource called a “tribal cultural resource” (TCR). The statute clearly identifies a TCR as a separate and distinct category of resource, separate from a historical resource. PRC Section 21074 defines a “tribal cultural resource” as any of the following under its subsections (a) through (c):
(a) (1) Sites, features, places, and objects with cultural value to descendant communities or cultural landscapes that are any of the following:
• Included in the California Register of Historical Resources. • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
• Deemed to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. (a) (2) Sacred places, including, but not limited to, Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines that meet either of the following criteria:
• Listed on the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File pursuant to Section 5097.94 or 5097.96 and a California Native American tribe has submitted sufficient evidence to the lead agency demonstrating that the sacred places are of special religious or cultural significance to the California Native American tribe or contain known graves and cemeteries of California Native Americans. • Listed or determined pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 310
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-11 October 2022
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 also may be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
California Native American Tribe: PRC Section 21074 defines a “California Native American Tribe” to mean a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This definition is broader than the concept of a “federally recognized tribe” that is typically used in implementing with various federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Formal Tribal Consultation: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification notice that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location as well as the lead agency contact information, and a notification statement that the federally recognized California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation.
Treatment of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives: PRC Section 21080.3.2 provides that as part of the consultation process, parties could propose mitigation measures. If the California Native American tribe requests consultation to include project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects, the consultation would be required to cover those topics. PRC Section 21082.3 provides that any mitigation measures agreed upon during this consultation “shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring program” if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource.
Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbances must cease, and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.
Penal Code, Section 622.5
Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 311
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Local
San Carlos General Plan
The San Carlos 2030 General Plan was adopted in 2009. The following relevant cultural and tribal cultural resources policies are from the General Plan’s Land Use Element.
Goal LU-12: Protect San Carlos’ historic and cultural resources to maintain and enhance a unique sense of place
Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical and cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties.
Policy LU-12.2: Foster the preservation, restoration, and compatible reuse of architecturally and/or historically significant structures and sites.
Policy LU-12.3: Ensures that modifications to identified historic resources are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Policy LU-12.4: Encourage continued use and adaptive reuse of designated historic resources through application of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and restoration.
Policy LU-12.5: Treat with respect and dignity any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the city and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.
Policy LU-12.8: Retain the exterior architectural character and setting of the Historical San Carlos Depot.
Action LU-12.1: Ensure thorough compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to potential impacts to cultural and historical resources.
4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
Per the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Focused GPU would have a significant impact related to historic, cultural, or tribal cultural resources if it would:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5;
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 312
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-13 October 2022
C. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? D. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is;
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe
4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources which could result from the implementation of the Focused GPU and recommends mitigation measures as needed to reduce significant impacts. Unless otherwise noted, impact discussions apply to both the Housing Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element aspects of the project.
Impact CUL-1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Focused GPU includes goals, policies, and actions to address the major housing needs of San Carlos and to facilitate resilience to natural and manmade hazards identified by State law (Government Codes 65583 and 654302(g), respectively). Historical resources are found throughout the project area. The Focused GPU would not, in and of itself, result in physical construction that could have an impact on cultural resources; however future residential and mixed-use developments facilitated by implementation of the project could include alteration of historic structures or potentially historic resources that are 50 years or older, or the alteration of the historic setting of cultural resources in or adjacent to the project area. Given the age of these resources, it is possible they are historically significant and eligible for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP. At the time a development project is proposed, it would be evaluated for the potential to impact historical resources and if necessary further studies would be prepared to determine the level of significance of this impact.
Future residential and mixed-use developments facilitated by implementation of the project would be subject to existing General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to historic preservation including Policy LU-12.1 which requires interested parties be consulted early in the development review process in relation to cultural resources. Consultation with the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and local
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 313
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
information repositories would be necessary to determine if future proposed development sites contain or have the potential to contain historic architectural resources. Action LU-12.1 ensures compliance with the provisions of CEQA in relation to potential impacts to cultural and historical resources. Compliance with CEQA involves identifying mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts. Action LU-12.2 directs the City to apply for Certified Local Government Status to participate in federal and State historic preservation programs. Action LU-12.3 assists in the identification of significant resources by requiring the City to update its list of historic, architecturally significant properties and landmarks every five years. Action LU-12.4 protects resources by requiring the city to develop a cultural landmarks and historic preservation plan and supporting ordinances.
Compliance with Policy LU-12.1 and Actions LU-12.2, LU-12.3, and LU-12.4, and compliance with CEQA requirements or evaluating historic resources would ensure that potential impacts to historical resources are minimized. This policy framework would serve to prevent impacts from occurring and would reduce the significance of impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level.
Impact CUL-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Future residential and mixed-use developments facilitated by implementation of the project may result in direct or indirect impacts to both prehistoric and historic buried archaeological resources.
Construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of archaeological sites. Additionally, development may draw the public to gather in areas with visible archaeological resources, resulting in destruction, illicit collection, or prospecting by unauthorized persons.
Policies LU-12.1 and LU-12.2 and Action LU-12.1 of the Land Use Element require the evaluation, protection, and preservation of historic and cultural resources. Policy LU-12.1 requires early evaluation of historic and cultural resources in the development review process. Policy LU12.2 calls for fostering the preservation of historically significant sites. Action LU-12.1 requires compliance with CEQA provisions in relation to cultural and historic resources.
Implementation of the polices and action identified above as well as compliance with federal and State law would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-3: The project could potentially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. However, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of General Plan policies. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 314
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-15 October 2022
Policy LU-12.5 of the Land Use Element calls for treating the discovery of human remains with treatment and respect and requires compliance with California Native Graves Protection, the Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.
The disturbance or destruction of a significant Native American resource is considered a significant impact. Implementation of Policy LU-12.5 and compliance would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.
Impact TRIB-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant Impact)
Under CEQA, a significant resource is one that is listed in a California or local historic register or is eligible to be listed. As such, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate such resources against the California Register criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (PRC § 21084.1, 20174, 14 CCR § 15064.5(3). Any ground disturbing work in native soils has the potential for archaeological discovery which, if Native American in origin, could be considered a TCR. Disturbance of TCRs would constitute a significant impact.
Future Focused GPU projects would be subject to Action LU-12.1 which requires compliance with the provisions of CEQA. CEQA review requires investigation to determine if known historic resources are within the project area. These investigations can include a NWIC CHRIS record search and outreach to the NAHC for an SLF search and subsequent tribal outreach to determine if such tribal cultural resources exist, and if so, subsequent evaluation to determine if there would be a significant impact to such resources. The information would be used to determine if mitigation is necessary to avoid or protect known and unknown resources. Implementation of this review process would ensure that future development projects properly analyze potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and include appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
One Native American Tribe, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band responded to the SB 18 outreach with information stating that if a Sacred Lands File Search and or California Historical Resources
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 315
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Information System (CHRIS) search reveal positive results within one mile of the project area, they recommend the following:
• All Crews and Individuals who will be moving any earth be Cultural Sensitivity Trained. • A Qualified California Trained Archaeological Monitor be present during any earth movement.
• A Qualified Native American Monitor be present during any earth movement.
The City will consider the need for construction crew training and Native American monitors on a case by case basis for future projects based on site specific information and subsequent outreach as part of the CEQA process. Action LU-12.1 and Mitigation Measure TRIB-1, below would protect potentially eligible resources from significant impacts.
Some Native American artifacts may not be considered unique archaeological resources under the CEQA guidelines (i.e., if there is not a demonstrable public interest in that information, it does not possess a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, and it is not directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric event or person). However, it is possible for a lead agency to determine that an artifact is considered significant to a local tribe, and therefore be considered a significant resource under CEQA. To prevent otherwise non-significant resources which are significant to a local tribe from being destroyed or damaged, the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRIB-1 would reduce impacts to TCRs to less than significant. This mitigation is detailed below.
Impact TRIB-1: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.
Mitigation Measure TRIB‐1: Consider all Native American Archaeological Discoveries to be Significant Resources. All Native American artifacts (tribal finds) shall be considered as a significant Tribal Cultural Resource, pursuant to PRC 21074 until the lead agency has enough evidence to make a determination of significance. The City shall coordinate with an archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications, as well as an appropriate tribe or tribes, as determined by the NAHC, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. An archaeological report shall be written detailing all archaeological finds and submitted to the City and the Northwest Information Center.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure TRIB-1 would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 316
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.4-17 October 2022
4.4.5 References
City of San Carlos. San Carlos 2030 General Plan. October 12, 2009. Accessed August 12, 2022 at: https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=1105.
City of San Carlos. 405 Industrial Road Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. August 9, 2022.
Levy, Richard. 1987. Costanoan in R.F. Heizer (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: California: 485-495. Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institute.
Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University. 2017. California Historical Resources Information System - Record Search, File No. 16-2020. June 22, 2017.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 317
Chapter 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-18 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 318
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-1
October 2022
4.5 ENERGY
This EIR section describes the existing environmental and regulatory energy setting, evaluates the project’s potential energy impacts, and identifies mitigation measures, if required. The analysis focuses on the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element. The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element and other remaining project components will not have an appreciable effect on energy consumption.
4.5.1 Environmental Setting
California’s estimated annual energy use as of 2019 included:
• Approximately 277,704 gigawatt hours of electricity; 1 • Approximately 2,136,907 million cubic feet of natural gas per year (for the year 2018)2 ;and
• Approximately 23.2 billion gallons of transportation fuel (for the year 2015). 3 In 2019, energy use in California by demand sector was:
• Approximately 39.3 percent transportation;
• Approximately 23.2 percent industrial;
• Approximately 18.7 percent residential; and
• Approximately 18.9 percent commercial.4
California's electricity in-state generation system generates approximately 200,475 gigawatt-hours each year. In 2019, California produced approximately 72 percent of the electricity it uses; the rest was imported from the Pacific Northwest (approximately 9 percent) and the U.S. Southwest (approximately 19 percent). Natural gas is the main source for electricity generation at approximately 42.97 percent of the total in-state electric generation system power, as shown in Table 4.5-1.
1 California Energy Commission. Energy Almanac. Total Electric Generation. 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electricgeneration. 2 Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. U.S. Energy Information Administration. August 31, 20020. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
3 California Energy Commission. Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018-2030. April 19, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/assessments/ 4
U.S. Energy Information Administration. California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector.
California State Profile and Energy Estimates. January 16, 2020 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 319
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Table 4.5-1: Total Electricity System Power (California 2019) Fuel Type
California
In-State
Generation
(GWh)
Percent of
California
In-State
Generation
Northwest
Imports
(GWh)
Southwest
Imports
(GWh)
Total
Imports
(GWh)
Percent
of
Imports
California
Power
Mix
(GWh)
Percent
California
Power
Mix
Coal 248 0.12% 219 7,765 7,985 10.34% 8,233 2.96%
Natural Gas 86,136 42.97% 62 8,859 8,921 11.55% 95,057 34.23% Nuclear 16,163 8.06% 39 8,743 8,782 11.37% 24,945 8.98% Oil 36 0.02% 0 0 0 0.00% 36 0.01%
Other (Petroleum
Coke/Waste
Heat)
411 0.20% 0 11 11 0.01% 422 0.15%
Large
Hydroelectric 33,145 16.53% 6,387 1,071 7,458 9.66% 40,603 14.62% Unspecified
Sources of Power 0 0.00% 6,609 13,767 20,376 26.38% 20,376 7.34% Renewables 64,336 32.09% 10,615 13,081 23,696 30.68% 88,032 31.70% Biomass 5,851 2.92% 903 33 936 1.21% 6,787 2.44%
Geothermal 10,943 5.46% 99 2,218 2,318 3.00% 13,260 4.77% Small Hydro 5,349 2.67% 292 4 296 0.38% 5,646 2.03%
Solar 28,513 14.22% 282 5,295 5,577 7.22% 34,090 12.28% Wind 13,680 6.82% 9,038 5,531 14,569 18.87% 28,249 10.17% Total 200,475 100.00% 23,930 53,299 77,229 100.00% 277,704 100.00% Notes:
1 Source: California Energy Commission. 2019 Total System electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation A summary of and context for energy consumption and energy demands within the State is presented in “U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates, Quick Facts” excerpted below:
California was the seventh-largest producer of crude oil among the 50 states in 2018, and, as of January 2019, it ranked third in oil refining capacity.
California is the largest consumer of jet fuel among the 50 states and accounted for one-fifth of the nation’s jet fuel consumption in 2018.
California’s total energy consumption is the second-highest in the nation, but, in 2018, the State’s per capita energy consumption ranked the fourth-lowest, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
In 2018, California ranked first in the nation as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources and fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation.
In 2018, large- and small-scale solar PV and solar thermal installations provided 19% of California’s net electricity generation.
5 .
5State Profile and Energy Estimates. Independent Statistics and Analysis. [Online] [Cited: January 16, 2020.] http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs2.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 320
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-3
October 2022
As indicated above, California is one of the nation’s leading energy-producing states, and California per capita energy use is among the nation’s most efficient. Given the nature of the proposed project, the remainder of this discussion will focus on the three sources of energy that are most relevant to the project—namely, electricity and natural gas for building uses, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the proposed project.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the project by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
PG&E provides electrical and natural gas service to the project area through State‐regulated utility contracts. PG&E provides electric energy service to 16 million people throughout a 70,000-squaremile service area in northern and central California. 6 The delivery of electricity involves a number
of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on‐site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid.
In 2020, PG&E provided 78,519 Gigawatt‐hours per year of electricity.7 Table 4.5-2 identifies PG&E’s specific proportional shares of electricity sources in 2019. As shown in Table 4.5-2, the 2019 PG&E Power Mix for their Base Plan has renewable energy at 29 percent of the overall energy resources, of which biomass and waste is at three percent, solar energy is at 12 percent, and wind power is at nine percent. Other energy sources include large hydroelectric at 27 percent and nuclear at 44 percent.
Natural gas is delivered through a nation‐wide network of high‐pressure transmission pipelines. In 2020, PG&E provided 4,509 million therms of natural gas.8 The following summary of natural gas resources and service providers, delivery systems, and associated regulation is excerpted from information provided by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
6 Pacific Gas & Electric. Company Profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/companyinformation/profile/profile.page. 7 California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.
8 California Energy Commission. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 321
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Table 4.5-2: PG&E 2019 Power Content Mix
Energy Resources 2019 PG&E Power Mix
Eligible Renewable1 29%
Biomass & Biowaste 3%
Geothermal 2%
Eligible Hydroelectric 2%
Solar 12%
Wind 9%
Coal 0%
Large Hydroelectric 27%
Natural Gas 0%
Nuclear 44%
Other 0%
Unspecified Sources of
power2 0%
Total 100%
Notes:
Source: Pacific Gas & Electric. 2019 Power Mix.
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-yourbill/bill-inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf (1) The eligible renewable percentage above does not reflect Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance, which is determined using a different methodology. (2) Unspecified sources of power are not traceable to specific generation sources.
The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 11 million customers that receive natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southwest Gas, and several smaller investor-owned natural gas utilities. The CPUC also regulates independent storage operators Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose Storage, Central Valley Storage and Gill Ranch Storage.
California's natural gas utilities provide service to over 11 million gas meters. SoCalGas and PG&E provide service to about 5.9 million and 4.3 million customers, respectively, while SDG&E provides service to over 800,000 customers. In 2018, California gas utilities forecasted that they would deliver about 4,740 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of gas to their customers, on average, under normal weather conditions.
The vast majority of California's natural gas customers are residential and small commercial customers, referred to as "core" customers. Larger volume gas customers, like electric generators and industrial customers, are called "noncore" customers. Although very small in number relative to core customers, noncore customers consume about 65 percent of the natural gas delivered by the state's natural gas utilities, while core customers consume about 35 percent.
The CPUC regulates the California utilities' natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over the utilities' transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering and billing.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 322
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-5
October 2022
Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. In 2017, California utility customers received 38 percent of their natural gas supply from basins located in the U.S. Southwest, 27 percent from Canada, 27 percent from the U.S. Rocky Mountain area, and 8 percent from production located in California.”9
Transportation Energy Resources
The project would generate vehicle trips resulting in consumption of energy resources, predominantly gasoline and diesel fuel. Gasoline (and other vehicle fuels) are commercially‐ provided commodities and would be available to the project residents and employees via commercial outlets.
The most recent data available shows the transportation sector emits 40 percent of the total greenhouse gases in the state and about 84 percent of smog-forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx).10,11 In 2019, 28 percent of total United States energy consumption was for transporting people and goods from one place to another. In 2019, petroleum comprised about 91 percent of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels.12 In 2020, about 123.49 billion gallons (or about 2.94 billion barrels) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, an average of about 337 million gallons (or about
8.03 million barrels) per day.13
4.5.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. On the state level, the CPUC and the California Energy Commissions (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Relevant federal and state energy‐related laws and plans are summarized below.
9 California Public Utilities Commission. Natural Gas and California. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/ 10 CARB. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2020 Edition. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
11 CARB. 2016 SIP Emission Projection Data.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emseic1_query.php?F_DIV=- 4&F_YR=2012&F_SEASON=A&SP=SIP105ADJ&F_AREA=CA
12 US Energy Information Administration. Use of Energy in the United States Explained: Energy Use for Transportation. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation 13 EIA. Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 323
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Federal
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
First established by the U.S. Congress in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. EPA jointly administer the CAFE standards. The U.S. Congress has specified that CAFE standards must be set at the “maximum feasible level” with consideration given for: (1) technological feasibility; (2) economic practicality; (3) effect of other standards on fuel economy; and (4) need for the nation to conserve energy.14
Issued by NHTSA and U.S. EPA in March 2020 (published on April 30, 2020 and effective after June 29, 2020), the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule would maintain the CAFE and CO2 standards applicable in model year 2020 for model years 2021 through 2026. The estimated CAFE and CO2 standards for model year 2020 are 43.7 mpg and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light trucks, projecting an overall industry average of 37 mpg, as compared to 46.7 mpg under the standards issued in 2012.15 Intermodal Surface transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions.
The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21) was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs.
TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides 14National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA). Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. 15 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules, The Safer Affordable FuelEfficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 2018. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-finalrule.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 324
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-7
October 2022
for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety.
State
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)
Senate Bill 1389 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the State’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety. The CEC prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years.
The 2019 IEPR was adopted February 20, 2020, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2019 IEPR focuses on a variety of topics such as decarbonizing buildings, integrating renewables, energy efficiency, energy equity, integrating renewable energy, updates on Southern California electricity reliability, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, natural gas assessment, transportation energy demand forecast, and the California Energy Demand Forecast.16 The 2020 IEPR was adopted March 23, 2021 and identifies actions the state and others can take to ensure a clean, affordable, and reliable energy system. In 2020, the IEPR focuses on California’s transportation future and the transition to zero-emission vehicles, examines microgrids, lessons learned from a decade of state-supported research, and stakeholder feedback on the potential of microgrids to contribute to a lean and resilient energy system, It also reports on California’s energy demand outlook, updated to reflect the global pandemic and help plan for a growth in zeroemission plug in electric vehicles.17 State of California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number 16 California Energy Commission. Final 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. February 20, 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2019-integrated-energy-policyreport 17 California Energy Commission. Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. March 23, 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020-integrated-energy-policyreport-update
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 325
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouraging urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
California Building Standards Code (Title 24)
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6) were adopted to ensure that building construction and system design and installation achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. The current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards, which became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 standards include efficiency improvements to lighting and non-residential standards which include alignment with the American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
All building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards. The 2016 residential standards were estimated to be approximately 28 percent more efficient than the 2013 standards, whereas the 2019 residential standards are estimated to be approximately seven percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, 2019 residential standards are estimated to be approximately 53 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings are estimated to be approximately 30 percent more efficient than the 2016 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 11). The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the 2019 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle. HCD modified the best management practices for stormwater pollution prevention (Section 5.106.2); added Sections 5.106.4.1.3 and 5.106.4.1.5 regarding bicycle parking; amended Section 5.106.5.3.5 allowing future charging spaces to qualify as designated parking for clean air vehicles; updated Section 5.303.3.3 regarding showerhead flow rates; amended Section 5.304.1 for outdoor potable water use in landscape areas and repealed Sections 5.304.2 and 5.304.3; and updated Section 5.504.5.3 regarding MERV filters in mechanically ventilated buildings.
Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) requires 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045.
SB 100 was adopted September 2018.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 326
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-9
October 2022
The interim thresholds from prior Senate Bills and Executive Orders would also remain in effect.
These include Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078), which requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) changed the target date to 2010.
Executive Order S-14-08, which was signed on November 2008 and expanded the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 directed the CARB to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010 to enforce S-14-08. Senate Bill X1-2 codifies the 33 percent renewable energy requirement by 2020.
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (SB 350), signed into law October 7, 2015, increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. In addition, SB 350 requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. To help ensure these goals are met and that greenhouse gas emission reductions are realized, large utilities will be required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). These IRPs will detail how each entity will meet their customers resource needs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ramp up the deployment of clean energy resources.
Assembly Bill 32
In 2006 the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions include carbon sequestration projects that would remove carbon from the atmosphere and best management practices that are technologically feasible and cost effective.
Assembly Bill 1493/Pavley Regulations
California Assembly Bill 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations to reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2005, the CARB submitted a “waiver” request to the U.S. EPA from a portion of the federal Clean Air Act in order to allow the State to set more stringent tailpipe emission standards for CO2 and other GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. On December 19, 2007 the U.S. EPA announced that it denied the “waiver” request. On January 21, 2009, CARB submitted a letter to the U.S. EPA administrator regarding the State’s request to reconsider the waiver denial. The U.S.
EPA approved the waiver on June 30, 2009.
Executive Order S-1-07/Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 327
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
On April 23, 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard and began implementation on January 1, 2011. The low carbon fuel standard is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 million tons per year by 2020. CARB approved some amendments to the LCFS in December 2011, which were implemented on January 1, 2013.
In September 2015, the Board approved the re-adoption of the LCFS, which became effective on January 1, 2016, to address procedural deficiencies in the way the original regulation was adopted.
In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector.
The LCFS is designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. Separate standards are established for gasoline and diesel fuels and the alternative fuels that can replace each. The standards are “backloaded,” with more reductions required in the last five years, than during the first five years. This schedule allows for the development of advanced fuels that are lower in carbon than today’s fuels and the market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and flexible fuel vehicles. It is anticipated that compliance with the low carbon fuel standard will be based on a combination of both lower carbon fuels and more efficient vehicles.
Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn-derived ethanol, at ten percent by volume, and low sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel as appropriate. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low carbon fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles, are also considered as low carbon fuels for the low carbon fuel standard.
Executive Order N-79-20/Zero Emissions by 2035 Standard Executive Order N-79-20 was issued in January 2021 and proposes a goal of the State that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035.
Furthermore, it proposes a goal of the State that 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks, as well as to transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 328
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-11 October 2022
California Air Resources Board
CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. Closely associated with the Pavley regulations, the Advanced Clean Cars emissions control program was approved by CARB in 2012. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zeroemission vehicles for model years 2015–2025. The components of the Advanced Clean Cars program include the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in the 2018 through 2025 model years.18 Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. The Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 10, Section 2435) was adopted to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. This section applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. Reducing idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles reduces the amount of petroleum-based fuel used by the vehicle.
Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen, and other Criteria Pollutants, form In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles The Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1, Section 2025) was adopted to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and other criteria pollutants from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles. This regulation is phased, with full implementation by 2023. The regulation aims to reduce emissions by requiring the installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repower of older, dirtier engines with newer emission-controlled models. The newer emission controlled models would use petroleum-based fuel in a more efficient manner.
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction mandates established in AB 32.
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 and aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy 18 California Air Resources Board, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, January 18, 2017. www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 329
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
(SCS) or alternate planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). CARB, in consultation with each MPO, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. As of 2018, the 2020 and 2035 targets were set at 15 percent and 19 percent, respectively. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s sustainable communities strategy or alternate planning strategy for consistency with its assigned targets.
4.5.3 Significance Thresholds and Methodology
In compliance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in a significant energy impact if it would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; or c) Cause a substantial adverse cumulative impact would respect to energy usage.
In addition, Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the means of achieving the goal of energy conservation includes the following:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
Appendix F of the State CEQA guidelines states that the environmental impacts from a project can include:
• The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. • The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
• The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
• The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. • The effects of the project on energy resources.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 330
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-13 October 2022
• The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
Methodology
Information from the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 Daily and Annual Outputs, contained in Appendix C, was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project related transportation energy demands and facility energy demands.
4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential energy impacts and recommends mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce significant impacts.
Impact Energy-1 – The project would not generate energy usage, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less Than Significant Impact) Energy consumption related to project operations would include transportation energy demands and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).
Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of residents, employees and truck trips. The City of San Carlos is an urbanized area, and the project would increase residential density in areas with existing transit stops.
Using the CalEEMod output (MD Acoustics 2022), it is assumed that an average trip for autos and light trucks was 9.5 miles and 3- 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 6.69 miles. 19 To be conservative, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 4.5-3 shows the estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy- heavy trucks for the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario compared with the Cumulative (2040) scenario.
20 The proposed project would generate approximately 28,957 new trips per day, compared to the existing 185,433 trips per day without the project, per the traffic analysis from Kittelson & Associates. The vehicle fleet mix was used from the CalEEMod output for the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario (MD Acoustics 2022). Table 4.5-3 shows that fuel consumption would be reduced by 62.7% percent per capita within the new development of the project.
19 CalEEMod default distance for H-W (home-work) or C-W (commercial-work) is 9.5 miles; 7.3 miles for H-O (home-other) or C-O (commercial-other).
20 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for 2040. See Appendix C for EMFAC output.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 331
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.5-3: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)1 Daily VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Cumulative (2040) Plus Project
Light Auto Automobile 12,265 16.6 203,595 46.25 4,402 1,606,624 Light Truck Automobile 2,491 6.69 16,668 38.51 433 157,992 Light Truck Automobile 7,660 6.69 51,246 38.53 1,330 485,409 Medium Truck Automobile 5,012 6.69 33,530 32.08 1,045 381,488 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 887 8.4 7,447 14.10 528 192,738 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 244 8.4 2,052 14.93 137 50,159 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 353 8.4 2,969 11.00 270 98,485 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 45 8.4 374 7.72 48 17,699 Total 28,957 -- 317,881 -- 8,193 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 2,990,595
Service Population 12,927
Annual Fuel Consumption per Capita 231.3
Cumulative (2040)
Light Auto Automobile 108,672 16.6 1,803,955 46.25 39,001 14,235,480 Light Truck Automobile 11,966 6.69 80,049 38.51 2,079 758,774 Light Truck Automobile 33,728 6.69 225,637 38.53 5,856 2,137,274 Medium Truck Automobile 22,341 6.69 149,462 32.08 4,659 1,700,525 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 4,531 8.4 38,061 14.10 2,699 985,064 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 1,222 8.4 10,267 14.93 688 250,984 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 1,760 8.4 14,783 11.00 1,344 490,408 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 1,214 8.4 10,197 7.72 1,321 482,337 Total 185,433 -- 2,332,412 -- 57,646 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 21,040,846
Service Population 33,896
Fuel Consumption per Capita 620.7
Percent Change Fuel Consumption per Capita -62.7%
Notes:
1 Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.
Trip generation and VMT generated by the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Furthermore, the state of California consumed approximately
4.2 billion gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015.21,22 Therefore, as fuel consumption would be reduced from the implementation of the project, fuel consumption would be insignificant in comparison to the State’s demand. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and would therefore have a less than significant impact.
21California Energy Commission. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics 22 California Energy Commission. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportationenergy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 332
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-15 October 2022
Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas)
Building operation and site maintenance (including landscape maintenance) from future projects associated with the Focused General Plan Update would result in the consumption of electricity and natural gas (provided by PG&E). Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of energy for heating, cooling, and equipment operation. These facilities would comply with all applicable California Energy Efficiency Standards and 2019 CALGreen Standards.
The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output (MD Acoustics 2022) and are provided in Table 4.5-4. As shown, natural gas demand will be reduced by 44.2 percent and electricity demand will be reduced by 1.8 percent per capita; the project’s 2040 growth projection would result in a reduction in energy usage per capita and would therefore have a less than significant impact.
Table 4.5-4: Unmitigated Annual Operation Energy Demand Summary Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Planning Area 41,199,470 Per Capita 3,056
Cumulative (2040) Planning Area 58,457,370
Per Capita 5,473
Net Difference -17,257,900
Percent Change Per Capita -44.2%
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Planning Area 15,103,600 Per Capita 1,120
Cumulative (2040) Planning Area 12,190,790
Per Capita 1,141
Net Difference 2,912,810
Percent Change Per Capita -1.8%
Impact Energy-2 – The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Regarding federal transportation regulations, the City of San Carlos is located in an already developed area with existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because the City is not planning for intermodal facilities in the Planning Area.
Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, all future projects within the Planning Area are required to comply with the California Green
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 333
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances, as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by PG&E.
Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, all projects within the Planning Area would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning design review to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, use LED lighting, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. All future projects would be required to show compliance with all federal, state, and local energy regulations.
As described above, by requiring compliance with all relevant regulations for future developments within the Planning Area, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations and would have a less than significant impact.
Impact Energy-3 – The project would not cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to energy usage. (Less Than Significant Impact) Individual projects do not demand enough energy usage to impact cumulative energy demand for the region. Thus, the analysis of energy usage is by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to energy demand is cumulatively considerable. As described under Impact Energy-1 and Energy-2, implementation of the project would result in a reduction in per capita energy usage compared to the 2040 scenario without project implementation; this impact would be considered less than significant.
4.5.5 References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2016). 2016 SIP Emission Projection Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emseic1_query.php?F_DIV=- 4&F_YR=2012&F_SEASON=A&SP=SIP105ADJ&F_AREA=CA .
________. (2020). California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2020 Edition. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
California Energy Commission. (2015). California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/californiagasoline-data-facts-and-statistics. ________. (2015). Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics . ________. (2018). Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018-2030. April 19. https://www.energy.ca.gov/assessments/.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 334
Chapter 4.5 Energy
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.5-17 October 2022
________. (2020). - Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. U.S. Energy Information Administration. August 31, 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
________. (2020). Final 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. February 20. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2019- integrated-energy-policy-report.
________. (2020). Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. March 23. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020- integrated-energy-policy-report-update.
________. (2020). Electricity Consumption by Entity.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.
________. (2020). Gas Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. ________. (2022). Energy Almanac. Total Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). (2021). Natural Gas and California. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2018). Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 2018. https://www.epa.gov/regulationsemissions-vehicles-and-engines/safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-final-rule.
National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2021). Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). (2022). Company Profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/aboutpge/company-information/profile/profile.page.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2020). California Energy Consumption by EndUse Sector. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. January 16. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
________. (2022). US Energy Information Administration. Use of Energy in the United States Explained: Energy Use for Transportation. June 17.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation. ________. (2022). Frequently Asked Questions. March 15. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 335
Chapter 4.5 Energy
4.5-18 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 336
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-1
October 2022
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section describes the existing geologic, groundwater, seismic, and soil characteristics of the project area. It includes a description of the regulatory framework and analyzes impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed Focused GPU.
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
San Carlos is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, which is set within the larger Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges that stretch from the Oregon border on the north to Point Conception on the south. In the San Francisco Bay area, most of the Coast Ranges are underlain by the tectonically complex, Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age sedimentary and metamorphic bedrock of the Franciscan Complex.
Based on geologic mapping by the US Geological Survey (USGS), the project site is underlain by Holocene-age coarse-grained alluvium (USGS 1993).
The geology within the city limit and the SOI is mainly unconsolidated sedimentary deposits underlain by sedimentary rock and Franciscan bedrock west of Alameda de las Pulgas. The western border area of the City and its western SOI is underlain by the Cretaceous age Franciscan Complex consisting mainly of greywacke sandstone, conglomerate and shale bedrock. Conglomerate, sandstone and mudstone of the Santa Clara formation underlie the transitional alluvial zone between the western hills and flatland deposits.
The lowland deposits, which underlie most of San Carlos, consist mostly of the deposits of Holocene age alluvium (less than 11,000 years old) consisting of a mix of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Some older Pleistocene age deposits are also present, but with similar compositions. The alluvium is several tens of feet to hundreds of feet thick at the Bay margins to the northeast. The more recent flatland deposits overlie Franciscan shale, sandstone and con-glomerate, which are exposed in the western foothills and form the core bedrock of the Coast Ranges on the San Francisco Peninsula.
In the east parts of the project area, the surface deposits are artificial fill consisting of a mix of gravel, sand, Bay mud, broken concrete, cement, asphalt, and solid waste, as much as ten feet thick. The older portions of the fill (mid-19th through mid-20th centuries) are undocumented in that there are few or no records about their constituent materials, distribution, or degree of compaction. Beneath the fill is zero to 20 feet of Bay mud, thickening toward the margin of San Francisco Bay. The Bay mud is saturated, highly compressible soft clay, silt and organic material.
Beneath the Bay mud is a series of interlayered clay, clayey sand and sand (likely the Old Bay Clay or the Colma formation). The geologic deposits are generally considered stiff enough to provide foundation support for light- and medium-weight structures.1 1 City of San Carlos. San Carlos 2030 General Plan EIR. June 25, 2009.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 337
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Groundwater
The Santa Clara formation is a major aquifer and is widespread in the South Bay, and provides potable water for San Carlos and other South Bay communities. The water table within the city limit and SOI normally is approximately10 feet below ground surface (bgs), with deeper water in the upland areas and groundwater at elevations less than five feet below grade nearer the Bay margins. (USGS, 1998) There can also be significant seasonal groundwater elevation effects, with groundwater elevations rising during the winter recharge season. Groundwater levels typically vary with the season and the amount of precipitation received.
Faulting and Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active faults and is considered seismically active.
Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the San Francisco Bay Region, and larger earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future.
The Monte Vista – Shannon, San Andreas, and Pilarcitos are the major faults in the vicinity of San Carlos. The San Andreas Fault System, which is located about one mile west of the western border of the City, is the closest active fault system to the City. Other major earthquake faults in the San Francisco Bay Area include: the Hayward Fault, which is approximately 14 miles to the northeast, the Calaveras Fault, which is approximately 21 miles to east, and the San Gregorio Fault, approximately 10 miles to the west.
The April 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas fault, estimated at approximately Moment Magnitude1 (Mw) 7.9 (M8.3 on the Richter scale), was likely the largest seismic event felt in San Carlos. Figure 4.6-1 shows the approximate position of the major fault zones in the Bay Area, historical magnitudes and location of the project area in relation to these features. Figure 4.6-2 shows the location of the San Andreas fault zone in proximity to the City. The relative lack of seismic activity since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Mw 6.9 and M7.1) suggests that the Bay Area will likely experience an earthquake of significant magnitude in the next couple of decades.
The 2016 U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) predicted a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area in 30 years (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 2020). During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very strong shaking would be expected to occur in the area. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with fault rupture, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and cyclic soil densification.2 2 Cyclic densification refers to seismically induced differential compaction of non-saturated granular material (sand and gravel above the groundwater table) caused by earthquake vibrations. The borings and CPTs indicate that the materials above the water table are sufficiently dense or clayey, and therefore the potential for seismic densification is low. (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 2020)
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 338
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.6-1 Regional Faults and Historical Earthquakes - City limit
1111111 s p h ere of Infl uence Areas
- Fault
Historical Earthqu k Magnitude on the ~lehs 1800 to 1999 O 5.5 - 5.9
0 6.0 - 6.4
0 6.5 -6.9
0 7.0 - 7.9
c tor Scale:
August2020
Soorm:SanCaflos2030GermalPlan,2007.
Pacific Ocean
0 0
~
w0 1T M
01""""' ......... ~~
5 1 o Miles
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 339
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.6-2 San Carlos Area Faults
D ci1y Limi1
1111111 Sphere o f Intl uence Areas
- Maj or Fault
E2ZJ Alquist Priolo Fault Zo ne
August2020 2030Genera1Plan,2007. S1J.mes:SanCarlos
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 340
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-5
October 2022
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated sandy soils lose strength and flow like a liquid during earthquake shaking. Ground settlement often accompanies liquefaction. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, silty sands, and uniformly graded sands.
Liquefaction is a serious hazard because buildings in areas that experience liquefaction may sink or suffer major structural damage. Liquefaction is most often triggered by seismic shaking, but can also be due to improper grading, landslides, or other factors. Liquefaction potential within the project area ranges from very low to very high. Liquefaction potential in the western hilly areas is low, while the flatlands and bay margins area have high liquefaction potential. Figure 4.6-3 shows the locations of the various liquefaction potential zones within the project area.
Landslides
Landslides are downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials such as rock, soil and/or artificial fill. The general characteristics that influence landslide hazards include slope material, slope steepness, water content, vegetation coverage and proximity to areas of erosion or man-made cuts.
The best predictor of where slides might occur is the location of past movements. Landslides occur on some of the upper hilly slopes, more commonly in the northwestern area of the City. Figure 8- 8 of the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element shows the landslide hazard areas in San Carlos. Differences in the physical characteristics of slope materials, which markedly influence landslide potential, vary widely in terms of landslide hazards.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading involves lateral ground movements caused by seismic shaking. These lateral ground movements are often associated with a weakening or failure of an embankment or soil mass overlying a continuous layer of liquefied sand or weak soils. Lateral spreading is generally the most pervasive and damaging type of liquefaction-induced ground failure generated by earthquakes.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain higher levels of clay which expand and shrink depending on water content.
Consequently, expansive soils present hazards for structures that were not appropriately engineered. The only expansive soils found in the city are located in the northwestern hills and the western hills near Interstate 280 (I-280), and areas within the SOI but outside of the city limit.
These expansive soils are technically referred to as Maymen loams and are classified as having low expansion potential. The areas of the City containing expansive soils are shown in Figure 8-7 in the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 341
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.6-3 Liquefaction Potential
D City Limit
•n1111 Sphere of Influence Areas
Liquefaction Danger
- Very Low
Low
- Medium
- High
- Very High
- Water
August20?0
Soorces:Sancarlos2030Genera1Plan,2007.
Greent,,;e, Rd
G'~
'lb,,_ <,,
"""'"1lr:lyo,
Nanette Dr
Redwood City
~ o~"""'iiiiiiiiioil.2~s~~""'I
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 342
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-7
October 2022
Subsidence
Subsidence is the gradual or sudden sinking of an area of land due to removal or displacement of subsurface earth materials. Subsidence in California is caused by lowered groundwater tables due to groundwater pumping or prolonged drought, drainage, compression of organic soils or mud, underground mining, and natural compaction or collapse. The effects of subsidence include damage to buildings and infrastructure. Sea level rise may lead to increased saturation of the underlying soils along the shoreline, increasing rates and risk of subsidence in eastern San Carlos.
Shoreline roads, including Hwy 101, and infrastructure located beneath roads are at an increased risk of damage or failure due to subsidence exacerbated by sea level rise.
Soil Erosion
Erosion is a natural process that occurs over time and can be caused by either wind or water moving over soils. The natural erosion process is an important factor in building up fertile valley soils.
However, soil erosion can become a problem when human activities accelerate the rate at which soils are being displaced. Non-point sources including impervious surfaces, unsound farming practices, over-grazing, construction activities, and road construction (particularly unpaved roads) can all accelerate the rate at which soils are removed from hillsides. Point sources such as industrial wastewater discharges, mining activities, wastewater treatment plants, commercial and residential land uses, and agricultural operations can affect erosion rates through increased storm water velocity, disturbance of natural drainage patterns, and water discharges. Soil erosion can leave siltchoked streams, gullied hillsides, and damaged farmland. Erosion may be a concern in the project area, especially during initial grading stages of future development under the proposed project.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies the life forms of the past, especially prehistoric life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Paleontological resources represent a limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. As defined in this section, paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or traces of multi-cellular invertebrate and vertebrate animals and multi-cellular plants, including their imprints, from a previous geologic period.
Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in the geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Paleontological resources include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities, and the geologic formations containing those localities. Paleontological resources preserve an aspect of Northern California's scientific prehistory that is important in understanding the development of the region as a whole.
Protection of potential paleontological resources can be achieved by estimating the probability of finding such resources in the project area, looking for formations in which they occur, and taking precautions, such as construction monitoring in areas with equivalent or similar formations, to avoid damaging sites.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 343
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones within the project area, although there is one near San Carlos, encompassing the area around the San Andreas fault where it passes through the Santa Cruz Mountains and Crystal Springs Reservoir, west of the City.
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was passed in 1990 following the Loma Prieta earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property damage caused by earthquakes.
The act directs the U.S. Department of Conservation to identify and map areas prone to the earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking.
The act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify potential seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required Investigation.
California Building Code
The 2019 California Building Codes (CBC) covers grading and other geotechnical issues, building specifications, and non-building structures.
California Public Resources Code
Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, including human remains, historic or prehistoric resources, paleontological resources on nonfederal land.
The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Section 5097.5 of the Code states the following:
No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
City of San Carlos General Plan
Government Code Section 65302.1 requires that a Safety Element be included in every General Plan which establishes policies and programs for the protection of the community from fires, flooding, geologic and other natural and human caused hazards. The following are the relevant
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 344
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-9
October 2022
policies and actions contained in the existing General Plan’s Community Safety and Services (CSS) Element:
Policy CSS-1.1: The City Building Official shall verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist. These reports shall address the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on the findings of these reports, the City shall require that new structures are designed and built to withstand the effects of seismically-induced ground failure.
Policy CSS-1.2: Prohibit structural development in known areas where seismic and geological hazards cannot be mitigated.
Policy CSS-1.3: Continue to monitor and enforce mitigation measures to reduce risk for projects where geological and seismic hazards can be mitigated.
Policy CSS-1.4: Enforce requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act should any fault traces in San Carlos be discovered and prove to be active or potentially active.
Policy CSS-1.5: Continue to incorporate seismic risk analysis into the City's ongoing building inspection program through thorough review of projects by plan check and field inspections.
Policy CSS-1.9: Continue to ensure that seismic hazards are mitigated to the greatest extent possible for critical public facilities, infrastructure and emergency services.
These 2009 General Plan policies appear in the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Element, with an updated numbering convention “ESPS” in place of “CSS.” See impact discussion below.
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
The City of San Carlos Municipal Code contains the following sections, which may be applicable to the proposed project:
12.08.165 Grading—Seasonal prohibitions
Grading shall be prohibited during the rainy season as defined in the Municipal Regional Permit, unless the City Engineer or his/her designee finds that the land disturbance is relatively minor and that erosion can be easily controlled, or is a necessary and integral part of an interim plan for previously initiated project phases, or is necessary to prevent an imminent threat to public safety as determined by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
12.08.180 Grading—Drainage restrictions
No grading shall be conducted in such a manner as to alter the established gradient of natural drainage channels in such a manner as to cause excessive erosion or flooding
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 345
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
12.08.190 Grading—Slopes and banks
A. The exposed or finished banks or slopes of any fill or excavation shall be uniformly graded, and no such slope, bank or inclined graded surface shall exceed a vertical height of thirty feet unless intercepting drains or terraces are provided. Such drains or terraces shall be permanently lined or protected with approved materials, and accumulating surface waters shall be conducted to an approved point of discharge. Berms shall be provided to prevent overflow from any such terrace or intercepting drain.
B. All exposed or finished banks or slopes of any fill or excavation having a slope steeper than three horizontal to one vertical shall be protected from erosion by approved planting, cribbing, walls or terracing, or a combination thereof. Other unprotected graded surfaces exceeding five thousand square feet in area shall be planted, paved or built upon, or shall be provided with berms and approved drainage facilities adequate to prevent erosion and to conduct the accumulation or runoff of surface waters to an approved place of discharge (San Carlos 2021).
4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
Per the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would have a significant impact related to geology and soils if it would:
A. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
2. Strong seismic ground shaking;
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
4. Landslides;
a. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; b. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
c. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; or
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 346
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-11 October 2022
d. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
e. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential impacts which could result from the implementation of the project and recommends mitigation measures as needed to reduce significant impacts. Unless otherwise noted, impact discussions apply to both the Housing Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element aspects of the project.
Impact GEO-1: the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving faults, liquefaction, or seismic-related ground failure. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Due to its location and physical conditions, future development in the project area would be subject to geologic and seismic constraints, which may represent a potentially significant impact on future structures. The most serious constraints would be related to the City’s proximity to major earthquake faults and liquefaction potential. Strong groundshaking could be expected to occur in the western portion of the City, closer to the active San Andrea fault system, which is located approximately one mile west of the City. As shown on Figure 4.6-3, the liquefaction danger increases from Very Low in the central and western portions of the City to Medium in the denser residential neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the City west of El Camino Real and the industrial areas of the City east of El Camino Real. The danger level is rated High and Very High for the some of the narrow creek corridors and surrounding residential areas on the west side of El Camino Real, and Very High for areas east of Industrial Road to US 101. The majority of increased residential density resulting from the project would be expected in the areas mapped as having the Medium danger rating.
Provided below are the applicable goals, policies and actions from the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element related to seismic safety for the City.
Goal ESPS-1: Reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to seismic and geologic hazards.
Policy ESPS-1.1: The City Building Official shall verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist. These reports shall address the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on the findings of these reports, the City shall require that new structures are designed and built to withstand the effects of seismically-induced ground failure.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 347
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Policy ESPS-1.2: Prohibit structural development in known areas where seismic and geological hazards cannot be mitigated.
Policy ESPS-1.3: Continue to monitor and enforce mitigation measures to reduce risk for projects where geological and seismic hazards can be mitigated.
Policy ESPS-1.4: Enforce requirements of the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act should any fault traces in San Carlos be discovered and prove to be active or potentially active.
Policy ESPS-1.5: Continue to incorporate seismic risk analysis into the City's ongoing building inspection program through thorough review of projects by plan check and field inspections.
Policy ESPS-1.6: Continue to encourage retrofitting of structures, particularly older buildings, to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides, consistent with state Building Codes and Historic Building Codes.
Policy ESPS-1.7: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision- making, site design, and construction standards.
Policy ESPS-1.8: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on seismic and geotechnical hazards.
Policy ESPS-1.9: Continue to ensure that seismic hazards are mitigated to the greatest extent possible for critical public facilities, infrastructure, and emergency services.
Action ESPS-1.1: Continue to review the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Uniform Building Code to ensure that geotechnical data and information relating to seismic hazards is current and accurate.
Action ESPS-1.2: Continue to enforce the City of San Carlos Unreinforced Masonry Seismic Retrofit Program ordinance for any existing unreinforced masonry structures that may exist within the city.
Action ESPS-1.3: Provide opportunity for voluntary retrofit of existing residential buildings by implementing the Standard Plan Set for Residential Seismic Retrofitting as adopted by ABAG.
In addition to the Environmental Safety and Public Services Element, the State Building Code (SBC) has guidelines on building design and construction based on seismic constraints and expected groundshaking throughout California.
Site-specific geotechnical analyses will be required to accurately assess potential seismic and geologic hazards at any specific project location. In addition, stringent City grading and building codes and slope landscaping requirements are in place to address landslide potential, and soils
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 348
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-13 October 2022
studies and remediation measures for any problems are required prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
With implementation of these Environmental Safety and Public Services Element goals, policies and actions, State Building Code requirements and City grading and building permit requirements, potential impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints on future development within the project area would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The northwestern portion of the City contains some steep slopes that would be subject to erosion as well as the banks of several creek within the City. The flatter portions of the City, making up the majority of the project area, are also subject to erosion by wind and water where native soils are left exposed during periods of high wind or strong storms. As a result, local soils may be subject to erosion or loss of topsoil as future development under the proposed project occurs on vacant land or where reconstruction of existing development occurs.
The City’s existing General Plan and the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contain policies related to erosion, including Policy ESPS-1.1, which requires the City Building Official to verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks, including erosion, exist. Also included is Policy ESPS-1.7, in which the City will “Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision-making, site design, and construction standards.” In addition to these policies, future development projects must comply with regulatory permitting requirements of multiple regional and state agencies. For example, development sites that disturb one or more acres of ground must comply with the statewide Construction General Permit, which requires that project proponents prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for short-term construction-related water quality impacts and file of Notice of Intent with the SWRCB (see Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality). Project proponents must also comply with the City’s grading permit requirements which include the preparation of erosion and sediment control plans to control soil erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction phases of new or redevelopment projects. New and redevelopment projects in the City must also comply with Provisions 12.08.165,
12.08.180 and 12.08.190 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code, described above, to address potential grading impacts during construction.
With implementation of these General Plan goals and policies, water quality regulatory permitting requirements, City grading permit and Municipal Code grading requirements, potential impacts related to erosion from future development within the project area would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-3: The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides or be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 349
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
As previously indicated, the project area contains steep topography, primarily in the northwest portion of the City. Other areas containing steeper slopes occur in the western part of the City, as well. These areas are mapped as having Moderate to High susceptibility to deep-seated landslides, according to the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element. It is possible that future events could trigger landslides in these areas, however, the majority of the area where the future growth anticipated by the project is expected to occur, is located in the flatter portions of the City having Low or no susceptibility to deep-seated landslides as mapped.
While future development within the city limit and SOI could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, from seismically induced landslides in certain areas, it is estimated that over 80 percent of the city slopes gently eastward toward the San Francisco Bay, with no unstable slopes. 3 The potential impacts from slope
instability is considered to be low, however, because unstable slopes could be encountered in upland areas during future construction projects. Adherence to Policy ESPS-1.1 in the City’s General Plan and proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element and conformance with State Building Code requirements would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact GEO-4: The project would not involve soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. (Less Than significant Impact) California law (Water Code §13263) requires formal authorization to discharge waste such as sewage. Authorization can be in the form of Water Board permits (called waste discharge requirements) or a waiver. The Water Board also specifies criteria for siting, design, construction, maintenance and management of onsite wastewater systems to ensure protection of water quality.
These specifications are implemented at the local level by the San Mateo County Health Department, including suitability of soils for supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Percolation testing is required to determine the adequacy of the soils.
The State Building Code (SBC) has general guidelines on infrastructure design and construction based on soil conditions and limitations in California. During the City’s existing development review process, proposed private projects are evaluated against the soil design constraints of the SBC, including those requiring septic or alternative wastewater treatment systems. The City typically requires this information be provided in a soils constraints or geotechnical constraints report signed by a registered engineer or geologist.
It is not anticipated that future new or redevelopment projects within the project area would require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Wastewater generated by such projects would be conveyed to the municipal sanitary sewer system that is maintained and operated by the City of San Carlos Public Works Department. In addition to serving areas within the City, the Public Works wastewater system also serves several outside 3 City of San Carlos. City of San Carlos Draft 2030 General Plan Update EIR. 2009.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 350
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.6-15 October 2022
sewer districts including Devonshire Canyon, Scenic Heights, Emerald Lake and the unincorporated portion of the Harbor Industrial Area. Properties in these areas are subject to an Outside Sewer Service Agreement with the City of San Carlos. Some of those properties may be relying of septic tanks.
With implementation of General Plan policies, the State Building Code, and San Mateo County Health Department requirements, potential impacts related to soil constraints, including soils not capable of accommodating septic systems where proposed for future development within the project area, would be less than significant.
Impact GEO-5: The project could potentially impact unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geological features. However, implementation of the City’s development review process would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact) Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project could result in excavation and earth moving activities for future new or redevelopment projects that could involve excavation into previously undisturbed soils. Such projects could therefore have the potential to encounter previously undisturbed paleontological resources. The City’s development review process, including CEQA analysis, requires research and technical analysis to determine if a site contains identified or possible paleontological or unique geologic resources. Implementation of this review process would ensure that future development projects properly analyze potential impacts to paleontological resources and include appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
4.6.5 References
City of San Carlos. City of San Carlos Draft 2030 General Plan Update EIR. 2009.
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation – Alexandria District Phase 2, San Carlos, California. 2021.
San Mateo County Health Department. Land Use, Septic Systems and Water Wells. Accessed on August 11, 2022 at:
https://www.smchealth.org/landuse#:~:text=If%20you%20live%20in%20an,into%20a%20la rge%20underground%20tank.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 351
Chapter 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 352
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-1
October 2022
4.7 GREENHOUSE GASES
This EIR chapter describes the existing environmental and regulatory greenhouse gas (GHG) setting of the project area and evaluates the project’s potential GHG emissions impacts. The analysis focuses on impacts as a result of the proposed Housing Element update. The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element and remaining other project components will not have an appreciable effect on greenhouse gases. Information on existing GHG emissions levels and applicable Federal and State regulations was obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and BAAQMD.
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Climate Change
Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate over a long period of time. Climate change can result from natural processes and from human activities. Natural changes in the climate can be caused by indirect processes, such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, or direct changes within the climate system itself (i.e., changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of gases and changes to the planet’s surface. Emissions affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition, while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. The term “climate change” is preferred over the term “global warming” because “climate change” conveys the fact that other changes can occur beyond just average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface. Elements that indicate that climate change is occurring on Earth include:
• Rising of global surface temperatures by 1.3° Fahrenheit (°F) over the last 100 years; • Changes in precipitation patterns;
• Melting ice in the Arctic;
• Melting glaciers throughout the world;
• Rising ocean temperatures;
• Acidification of oceans; and
• Range shifts in plant and animal species.
Climate change is intimately tied to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet, and without it, life as we know it on Earth would not exist. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 150 years), human activities have been adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 353
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
in the atmosphere that “trap” energy, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature. Human activities that enhance the greenhouse effect are detailed below.
Greenhouse Gases
Gases that “trap” heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as “greenhouse gases.” Many chemical compounds in the Earth’s atmosphere exhibit the GHG property. GHGs allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When the sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, it is either absorbed or reflected back toward space. Earth, or materials near the Earth’s surface, that have absorbed energy from sunlight warm up during the daytime and emit infrared radiation back toward space during both the daytime and nighttime hours. GHGs absorb this long-wave, infrared radiation and help keep the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.
GHGs that contribute to climate regulation are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate regulation is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. Some GHGs are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide, or CO2), and offgassing from low-oxygen environments such as swamps or exposed permafrost (methane or CH4).
However, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., CO2) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change. Human production of GHGs has increased steadily since pre-industrial times (approximately pre-1880), and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from a pre-industrial value of 280 parts per million (ppm) in the early 1800s to approximately 419 ppm in April 2021(NOAA, 2021). The effects of increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere include increasing shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns and amounts, reduced ice and snow cover, sea level rise, and acidification of oceans. These effects in turn impact food and water supplies, infrastructure, ecosystems, and overall public health and welfare.
The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs—CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)— and two groups of gases—HFCs and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These GHGs are the primary GHG emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. Water vapor is also a common GHG that regulates the Earth’s temperature; however, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can change substantially from day to day, whereas other GHG emissions remain in the atmosphere for longer periods of time. Black carbon consists of particles emitted during combustion; although a particle and not a gas, black carbon also acts to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. The most common GHGs are described below.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is emitted and removed from the atmosphere naturally. Animal and plant respiration involves the release of CO2 from animals and its absorption by plants in a continuous cycle. The ocean-atmosphere exchange results in the absorption and release of CO2 at the sea surface. CO2 is also released from plants during wildfires. Volcanic eruptions release a small amount of CO2 from the Earth’s crust. Human activities that affect
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 354
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-3
October 2022
CO2 in the atmosphere include burning of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and product uses. Combustion of fossil fuels used for electricity generation and transportation are the largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon stored in them is released into the atmosphere entirely as CO2. Emissions from industrial activities also emit CO2 such as cement, metal, and chemical production and use of petroleum produced in plastics, solvents, and lubricants. • Methane (CH4) is emitted from human activities and natural sources. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, soils, and wildfires. Human activities that cause CH4 releases include fossil fuel production, animal digestive processes from farms, manure management, and waste management. It is estimated that 50 percent of global CH4 emissions are human generated. Releases from animal digestive processes at agricultural operations are the primary source of humanrelated CH4 emissions. CH4 is produced from landfills as solid waste decomposes. CH4 is a primary component of natural gas and is emitted during its production, processing, storage, transmission, distribution, and use. Decomposition of organic material in manure stocks or in liquid manure management systems also releases CH4. Wetlands are the primary natural producers of CH4 because the habitat is conducive to bacteria that produce CH4 during decomposition of organic material.
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is emitted from human sources such as agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and production of certain acids. N2O is produced naturally in soil and water, especially in wet, tropical forests. The primary human-related source of N2O is agricultural soil management due to use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and other techniques to boost nitrogen in soils.
Combustion of fossil fuels (mobile and stationary) is the second leading source of N2O, although parts of the world where catalytic converters are used (such as California) have significantly lower levels than those areas that do not. • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is commonly used as an electrical insulator in high-voltage electrical transmission and distribution equipment such as circuit breakers, substations, and transmission switchgear. Releases of SF6 occur during maintenance and servicing as well as from leaks of electrical equipment.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are entirely human made and are mainly generated through various industrial processes. These types of gases are used in aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, and magnesium production and processing. HFCs and PFCs are also used as substitutes for ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.
In 1997, the United States (U.S.) was a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol; however, the treaty was not sent to Congress for ratification. Thus, while a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. is not an official party to this international agreement and is not subject to any emission reductions goals established pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol. Although the U.S. is not a party to this agreement, the
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 355
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
GHGs targeted for reduction by the Kyoto Protocol are also targeted under federal and State GHG reporting and emissions reduction programs.
GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. The potential for a particular greenhouse gas to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their CO2 equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined GWP to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions. The GWP and estimated atmospheric lifetimes of the common GHGs are shown in Table 4.7-1.
Table 4.7-1: Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Common GHGs (100-Year Horizon)
GHG GWP(A) GHG GWP(A)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Methane (CH4) 25 CF4 6,500
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 C2F6 9,200
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) C4F10 7,000
HFC-23 14,800 C6F14 7,400
HFC-134a 1,430 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800
HFC-152a 140
HCFC-22 1,700
Source: CARB, 2014
GWPs are based on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report.
Climate Change and California
The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) identified anticipated impacts to California due to climate change through extensive modeling efforts. General climate changes in California indicate that:
• California is likely to get hotter and drier as climate change occurs with a reduction in winter snow, particularly in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. • Some reduction in precipitation is likely by the middle of the century. • Sea levels will rise up to an estimated 55 inches.
• Extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods will increase. • Ecological shifts of habitat and animals are already occurring and will continue to occur (CNRA, 2009).
It should be noted that changes are based on the results of several models prepared under different climatic scenarios; therefore, discrepancies occur between the projections and the interpretation.
The potential impacts of global climate change in California are detailed below.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 356
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-5
October 2022
In January 2018, the CNRA adopted Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, which builds on nearly a decade of adaptation strategies to communicate current and needed actions State government should take to build climate change resiliency. It identifies hundreds of ongoing actions and next steps that State agencies are taking to safeguard Californians from climate impacts within a framework of 81 policy principles and recommendations. The 2018 update also has two new chapters and incorporates a feature showcasing the many linkages among policy areas. A new “Climate Justice” chapter highlights how equity is woven throughout the entire plan (CNRA, 2018).
Statewide GHG Emissions
CARB prepares an annual statewide GHG emission inventory using regional, State, and federal data sources, including facility-specific emissions reports prepared pursuant to the State’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Program. The statewide GHG emission inventory helps CARB track progress towards meeting the State’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32 GHG emissions target of 431 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e), as well as establish and understand trends in GHG emissions.
1 Statewide GHG emissions for the 2007 to 2018 time period are shown in Table 4.7-2 (2007-2018 Statewide GHG Emissions (Million MTCO2e)).
Table 4.7-2: 2007-2018 Statewide GHG Emissions (Million MTCO2e) Scoping Plan Sector
Year
‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18
Agriculture 35 35 33 34 34 36 34 35 33 33 32 33
Commercial/Residential 44 44 45 46 46 44 44 38 39 41 41 41 Electric Power 114 120 101 90 89 98 91 89 85 69 62 63
High GWP 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21
Industrial 90 90 87 91 89 89 92 92 90 89 89 89
Recycling and Waste 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Transportation 186 175 168 165 162 161 161 163 166 170 171 170 Total Million MTCO2e
(A) 488 484 455 448 444 452 448 443 441 429 424 425
1 CARB approved use of 431 million MTCO2e as the state’s 2020 GHG emission target in May 2014. Previously, the target had been set at 427 million MTCO2e.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 357
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Table 4.7-2: 2007-2018 Statewide GHG Emissions (Million MTCO2e) Scoping Plan Sector
Year
‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18
Source: CARB, 2020
Totals may not equal due to rounding. CARB inventory uses GWPs based on the United Nations’ IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report.
As shown in Table 4.7-2, statewide GHG emissions have generally decreased over the last decade, with 2018 levels (425 million MTCO2e) approximately 12 percent less than 2007 levels (488 million MTCO2e) and below the State’s 2020 reduction target of 431 million MTCO2e. The transportation sector (170 million MTCO2e) accounted for more than one-third (approximately 40 percent) of the state’s total GHG emissions inventory (425 million MTCO2e) in 2018.
Existing Planning Area GHG Emissions
The existing land uses within the Planning Area contribute to existing city, regional, and statewide GHG emissions. The Planning Area’s existing GHG emissions, presented below in Table 4.7-3 (Existing (2020) GHG Emissions in the Planning Area), were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. GHG emissions generated within the Planning Area primarily come from the area, energy, and mobile sources described in Section
4.3.1, as well as the following additional sources specific to GHG emissions:
• Energy use and consumption: Emissions generated from purchased electricity and natural gas. As estimated using CalEEMod, the existing land uses in the Planning Area use and consume approximately 2,913 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity per year and 58,457 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) of natural gas per year. 390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Million MTCO2e
Year
2007 - 2018 Statewide GHG Emissions (Million MTCO2e)
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 358
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-7
October 2022
• Solid waste disposal: Emissions generated from the transport and disposal of generated waste. CalEEMod estimates approximately 1,784 tons of solid waste are generated per year by the people working and living within the Planning Area. • Water/wastewater: Emissions from electricity used to supply water to land uses and treat the resulting wastewater generated. As estimated in CalEEMod, existing land uses within the Planning Area use approximately 268 million gallons of water per year.
The Planning Area’s existing GHG emissions were estimated using default emissions assumptions provided by CalEEMod and are summarized in Table 4.7-3 (Existing GHG Emissions in the Planning Area) below. As this GPU is to analyze housing impacts, the existing residential population has been used for a population. The emissions are based on Year 2040 vehicle fleet characteristics and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) energy goals (60 percent renewable energy) and represent the projected emissions that existing land uses would generate in the future (assuming no increase in population or change in land uses). This scenario provides an estimate of how emissions would change in the Planning Area as a result of regulations that would reduce motor vehicle emissions in the future, and allows for distinguishing the potential change in emissions that would occur from the proposed change in land uses that would occur with implementation and buildout of the project in Year 2040, as opposed to a change in emissions that would occur from regulatory requirements that would be in place whether or not the project is adopted.
Table 4.7-3: Existing Land Use GHG Emissions Estimates
Source
GHG Emissions (Metric Tons / Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O
Total
MTCO2e
Existing Land Use Operational Emissions in Year 2040 (Future Conditions) Area 237.18 0.29 0.01 247.35
Energy 4,247.45 0.24 0.08 4,277.14
Mobile 16,594.70 1.15 0.77 16,851.35
Waste 362.09 21.40 0.00 897.06
Water 167.88 5.37 0.13 340.49
Total Existing GHG(A) 21,609.29 28.45 0.98 22,613.38
Residential Population 10,682
Existing GHG Efficiency (MTCO2e / SP) 2.12
Source: MD, 2022 (see Appendix D)
Totals may not equal due to rounding.
4.7.2 Regulatory Framework
International and Federal
International Regulation and the Kyoto Protocol
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 359
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the “United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change” agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan currently consists of more than 50 voluntary programs for member nations to adopt.
Federal Regulation and the Clean Air Act
On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued an endangerment finding that current and projected concentrations of the six Kyoto GHGs in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, and PFCs) threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This finding came in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that GHGs are pollutants under the Federal Clean Air Act. As a result, the U.S. EPA issued its GHG Tailoring Rule in 2010, which applies to facilities that have the potential to emit more than 100,000 MTCO2e. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA (No. 12-1146), finding that the U.S. EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a “major” source required to obtain a permit pursuant to the “Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration” or “Title V” operating permit programs.
The U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires facilities that emit 25,000 MTCO2e or more of GHG to report their GHG emissions to the U.S. EPA to inform future policy decisionmakers.
The Current Administration
Former President Trump and the U.S. EPA, during the time of the Trump administration, stated their intent to halt various federal regulatory activities to reduce GHG emissions. President Biden, who took office in January 2021, and his administration have begun to strengthen federal policy once again around GHG emissions on a national level. California and other states are still challenging some federal actions undertaken during the time of the Trump administration that would delay or eliminate GHG reduction measures and have committed to cooperating with other countries to implement global climate change initiatives. The timing and consequences of these types of federal decisions and potential responses from California and other states are speculative at this time.
The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
While the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required reductions in GHGs, Congress never ratified the protocol. The federal government chose voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science. In 2015, the Paris Agreement was adopted, which aims at keeping global temperature rise this century below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase above an additional 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Agreement was signed by President Obama in April 2016, but the agreement does not contain enforcement provisions that would require U.S. Senate ratification. On November 4, 2019, Former President Trump formally began the process to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. In accordance with
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 360
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-9
October 2022
Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, that process was complete on November 4, 2020. As one of his first acts in the Oval Office, President Biden signed an executive order to have the United States rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. At this time, there are no federal regulations or policies pertaining to GHG emissions that directly apply to the project. 2 Federal Vehicle Standards
In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011; and, in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleetwide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 percent to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.
In August 2016, the EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018–2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021–2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons (MT) and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (U.S. EPA and NHTSA, 2016).
In August 2018, The USEPA and NHTSA released a notice of proposed rulemaking called Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule).
2 Though the U.S. EPA announced the Clean Power Plan on August 3, 2015, which sets standards for power plants and customizes goals for states to cut their carbon pollution, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Plan on February 9, 2016, pending further judicial review.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 361
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019.) The Part One Rule revoked California’s authority to set its own greenhouse gas emissions standards and set zero emission vehicle mandates in California. As a result of the loss of the zero emission vehicles (ZEV) sales requirements in California, there may be fewer ZEVs sold and thus additional gasoline-fueled vehicles sold in future years (CARB 2019b).
In April 2020, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued the SAFE Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021- 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Final SAFE Rule) that relaxed federal greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards. The Final SAFE Rule relaxed federal greenhouse gas emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to increase in stringency at approximately 1.5 percent per year from model year (MY) 2020 levels over MYs 2021–2026. The previously established emission standards and related “augural” fuel economy standards would have achieved approximately 4 percent per year improvements through MY 2025. The Final SAFE Rule affects both upstream (production and delivery) and downstream (tailpipe exhaust) CO2 emissions (CARB, 2020) and has been challenged by 23 states. The litigation is ongoing.
State
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act) and Related GHG Goals In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes the caps on statewide greenhouse gas emissions proclaimed in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 and established the timeline for meeting State GHG reduction targets. The deadline for meeting the 2020 reduction target is December 31, 2020.
As part of AB 32, CARB determined 1990 GHG emissions levels and projected a “business-asusual” (BAU)3 estimate for 2020, to determine the amount of GHG emission reductions that would need to be achieved. In 2007, CARB approved a statewide 1990 emissions level and corresponding 2020 GHG emissions limit of 427 million MTCO2e (CARB, 2007). In 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which projects 2020 statewide GHG emissions levels of 596 million MTCO2e and identifies numerous measures (i.e., mandatory rules and regulations and voluntary measures) that will achieve at least 174 million MTCO2e of GHG reductions and bring statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2009).
EO B-30-15, 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, set a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030. To achieve this ambitious target, Governor Brown identified five key goals for reducing GHG emissions in California through 2030:
• Increase renewable electricity to 50 percent.
3 BAU is a term used to define emissions levels without considering reductions from future or existing programs or technologies.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 362
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-11 October 2022
• Double energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner.
• Reduce petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. • Reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants.
• Manage farms, rangelands, forests, and wetlands to increasingly store carbon.
By directing State agencies to take measures consistent with their existing authority to reduce GHG emissions, EO B-30-15 establishes coherence between the 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals set by AB 32 and seeks to align California with the scientifically established GHG emissions levels needed to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius.
To reinforce the goals established through EO B-30-15, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197 on September 8, 2016. SB 32 made the GHG reduction target (to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) a requirement, as opposed to a goal. AB 197 gives the Legislature additional authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions are implemented, and requires CARB to, “protect the State’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities …[and] consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is the comprehensive plan primarily directed at identifying the measures necessary to reach the GHG reduction targets stipulated in AB 32. The key elements of the 2008 Scoping Plan were to expand and strengthen energy efficiency programs, achieve a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent, develop a cap-and-trade program with other partners (including seven states in the United States and four territories in Canada) in the Western Climate Initiative, establish transportation-related targets, and establish fees (CARB, 2009). CARB estimated that implementation of these measures will achieve at least 174 million MTCO2e of reductions and reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2009).
In a report prepared on September 23, 2010, CARB indicated 40 percent of the reduction measures identified in the Scoping Plan had been secured (CARB 2010). Although the cap-and-trade program began on January 1, 2012 (after CARB completed a series of activities dealing with the registration process, compliance cycle, and tracking system), covered entities did not have an emissions obligation until 2013. In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was reapproved by CARB with the program’s environmental documentation.
On February 10, 2014, CARB released the public draft of the “First Update to the Scoping Plan.” “The First Update” built upon the 2008 Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations, and identified opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments (CARB 2014). “The First Update” defined CARB’s climate change priorities over the next five years, and set the
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 363
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
groundwork to reach post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-12. It also highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. “The First Update” evaluated how to align the State’s long-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. “The First Update” to the Scoping Plan was approved by the Board on May 22, 2014.
The second update to the scoping plan, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan update (CARB 2017), was adopted by CARB in December 2017. The primary objective for the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is to identify the measures required to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target for 2030 (i.e., reduce emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) established under EO B-30-15 and SB 32. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan identifies an increased need for coordination among State, regional, and local governments to realize the potential for GHG emissions reductions that can be gained from local land use decisions. It notes that emissions reductions targets set by more than one hundred local jurisdictions in the state could result in emissions reductions of up to 45 million MTCO2e and 83 million MTCO2e by 2020 and 2050, respectively. To achieve these goals, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes a recommended planlevel efficiency threshold of six metric tons or less per capita by 2030 and no more than two metric tons per capita by 2050. The major elements of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan framework include:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing zero emission vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030). • Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. • Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing CH4 and hydrocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030.
• Continued implementation of SB 375.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps. • 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030. • Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 364
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-13 October 2022
Senate Bill 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) California enacted legislation (SB 375) to attempt to reduce GHG emissions by modifying land use planning and approval practices. SB 375, signed in September 2008, requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), such as ABAG, to adopt a sustainable community strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy when preparing their updated Regional Transportation Plans for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. All future transportation funding must be consistent with the SCS. The legislation also allows developers to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. SB 375 also directs CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB will work with the MPOs and regional planning agencies (ABAG and MTC in the Bay Area) to align their regional transportation, housing and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and attain its GHG reduction targets. However, the regional targets for reductions in GHG emissions have not yet been adopted by CARB.
SB 375 also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing needs allocation cycle from five years to eight years for local governments within an MPO that meet certain requirements. City or county land use policies, including general plans, are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan. However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize qualified projects and categorize projects as transit priority projects if they are consistent with an approved SCS or alternative planning strategy.
Senate Bill 97 - Modification to the Public Resources Code Related to AB 32, Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) required that by July 1, 2009, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency (Natural Resource Agency) guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, including but not limited to effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. OPR transmitted draft guidelines to the Natural Resources Agency in June 2009.
Per SB 97, the draft guidelines were approved in December 2009, meeting the requirement of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. The guidelines incorporate proposed text changes related to the significance criteria for evaluating GHG emissions on the environment. The draft guidelines were formalized on March 18, 2010 and all CEQA documents prepared after this date are required to comply with the OPR-approved amendments to the CEQA guidelines. As part of these guidelines, OPR recommends that each agency develop an approach to determining the significance of GHG emissions, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, that considers the following factors: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; (2) whether project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency has determined applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for reducing or mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 365
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
The OPR does not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions within the amended CEQA guidelines, nor has it prescribed methodologies or specific mitigation measures for evaluating and reducing GHG emissions. Thus, the amendments encourage lead agencies to develop their own determinations based on substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier subsequent project-level environmental review processes.
At this time, neither the City of San Carlos nor the BAAQMD have formalized a significance threshold for GHG emissions within the City or region. However, the BAAQMD released GHG thresholds in 2017 as part of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which provide guidance on quantifying and evaluating GHG emissions.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines propose an operational-related threshold of significance for GHG emissions for plans (including General Plans) but do not propose a threshold of significance for construction-period GHG emissions. As of 2017, the BAAQMD proposed a threshold of 6.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population for long-range, plan-level GHG emission impacts. In other words, a plan that complied with the BAAQMD standard would result in not more than 6.6 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year per resident and employee (BAAQMD 2017).
Senate Bill 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act) and Senate Bill 100 SB 350 was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS. The Bill requires 40 percent of the state’s energy supply to come from renewable sources by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energyefficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. SB 100, signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, increased the RPS requirement for 2030 from 50 percent to 60 percent.
Assembly Bill 1493
With the passage of AB 1493 (Pavley I) in 2002, California launched an innovative and pro-active approach for dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions.
These stricter emissions standards apply to automobiles and light trucks from 2009 through 2016.
Although litigation was filed challenging these regulations, and the U.S. EPA initially denied California’s related request for a waiver, a waiver was granted. In 2012, the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 among light-duty vehicles. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations and the ZEV regulation. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 366
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-15 October 2022
Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 32 & Assembly Bill 197 (Statewide Interim GHG Targets) California EO B-30-15 (April 29, 2015) set an “interim” statewide emission target to reduce greenhouse emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directed state agencies with jurisdiction over GHG emissions to implement measures pursuant to statutory authority to achieve this 2030 target and the 2050 target of 80 percent below 1990 levels. Specifically, the EO directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to express this 2030 target in metric tons. AB 197 (September 8, 2016) and SB 32 (September 8, 2016) codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as detailed in EO B-30-15. AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions reporting that is broken down to sub-county levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of emissions impacting disadvantaged communities.
Executive Order B-55-18
Governor Brown issued EO B-15-18 on September 10, 2018, which directs the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.
Title 24 Energy Standards
The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC).
CALGreen Code contains both mandatory and voluntary measures. For non-residential land uses there are 39 mandatory measures including, but not limited to exterior light pollution reduction, wastewater reduction by 20 percent, and commissioning of projects over 10,000 square feet. Two tiers of voluntary measures apply to non-residential land uses, for a total of 36 additional elective measures.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 367
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The 2019 standards, adopted May 9, 2018, became effective on January 1, 2020 and improve upon existing standards, focusing on three key areas: proposing new requirements for installation of solar photovoltaics for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings; updating current ventilation and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) requirements, and extending Title 24 Part 6 to apply to healthcare facilities. The 2019 standards also propose several smaller improvements in energy efficiency.
Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife In its decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Newhall) 62 Cal.4th 204 (2015), the California Supreme Court set forth several options that lead agencies may consider for evaluating the cumulative significance of a proposed project’s GHG emissions:
A. A calculation of emissions reductions compared to a BAU scenario based upon the emissions reductions in CARB’s Scoping Plan, including examination of the data to determine what level of reduction from BAU a new land use development at the proposed location must contribute in order to comply with statewide goals.
B. A lead agency might assess consistency with AB 32’s goals by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities.
C. Use of geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans to provide a basis for tiering and streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis.
D. A lead agency may rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, though use of such thresholds is not required.
Regional
San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
The City’s Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) provides tools and encouragement for residents and local businesses to coordinate with the City to reduce GHG emissions. The CMAP, which was acknowledged by the San Carlos City Council on September 27, 2021, includes a GHG emissions inventory from the year 1990 and sets forth a GHG reduction targets for the years 2030 and 2050- a 40 percent and 80 percent decrease in GHG emissions from 1990 levels, respectively. To this end, the CAP includes a number of targeted reduction strategies.
4.7.3 Significance Thresholds
Per the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would:
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 368
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-17 October 2022
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment;
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases; or
c) Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to greenhouse gases? The BAAQMD Threshold of Significance for operational-related GHG impacts of plans employs either a GHG efficiency-based metric of 6.6 MT per service population (SP) per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), or a GHG Reduction Strategy option.
4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential impacts related to GHG emissions and recommends mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce significant impacts.
Impact GHG-1 – The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less Than Significant Impact) Project implementation would result in construction and operational activities that would generate GHG emissions. As described in more detail below, the GHG emissions generated by the growth envisioned under the project would exceed BAAQMD thresholds and result in a significant and unavoidable impact even with the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures.
The planned growth envisioned by the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario could result in 3,688 newly built dwelling units within the Planning by 2040. This growth would result in construction activities that would generate GHG emissions primarily from fuel combustion in equipment during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities and in worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from future development projects. Construction activities would occur intermittently at different sites within the Planning Area over the next approximately 20 years. Generally, the BAAQMD recommends amortizing construction GHG emissions over a 30-year period since construction activities for a project typically only occur towards the start of a project and cease to emit GHGs upon the completion of construction activities. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions and compared to appropriate thresholds, plans, etc. As described under Impact AIR-2, there is uncertainty regarding the timing and methods of construction activities that would occur for future development projects. Construction activities would cease to emit GHGs upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year until the project is decommissioned. For reasons discussed in Impact AIR-2, construction emissions were not estimated for the proposed project.
The existing and proposed land uses envisioned by the project would result in operational GHG emissions, primarily from mobile, energy, and area sources. Mobile sources, including vehicle trips to and from land uses within the Planning Area, would result primarily in emissions of CO2,
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 369
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-18 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
with emissions of CH4 and NO2 also occurring in minor amounts. In addition to mobile sources, GHG emissions would also be generated from natural gas usage, electricity use, water conveyance and use, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. Natural gas use would result in the emission of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 (from the combustion of natural gas). Electricity use associated with both the physical usage of the development, as well as the energy needed to transport water/wastewater, would result in the production of GHGs if the electricity is generated through non-renewable sources (i.e., combustion of fossil fuels). Solid waste generated by land uses within the Planning Area would contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Landfills and other methods of disposal use energy when transporting and managing the waste. In addition, landfills, the most common waste management practice, results in the release of CH4 from the decomposition of organic materials.
Potential operational GHG emissions resulting from operation of the land uses proposed by the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The modeling assumes project growth consistent with the land use development intensities described in Impact AIR-2. The modeling is based on default data assumptions contained in CalEEMod, with the project-specific modifications described under Impact AIR-2.
The total unmitigated GHG emissions estimated to occur under projected 2040 growth conditions are shown below in Table 4.7-4 and compared against the potential GHG emissions that could exist in 2040 with the existing Cumulative (2040) scenario. As described above, the BAAQMD recommends the use of an efficiency threshold for plan-level analysis in which potential emissions levels are considered in terms of how many GHG emissions would be produced by each resident and employee using a project’s facilities. Thus, the plan-level threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e/yr/SP is the primary contextual factor considered in evaluating the significance of the project’s GHG emissions changes.
Table 4.7-4: Unmitigated Project GHG Emissions
Source
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e / Year)
Cumulative (2040)(A)
Cumulative (2040)
Plus Project Net Change
Area 247.35 292.95 46
Energy 4,277.14 3,622.89 -654
Mobile 16,851.35 16,549.43 -302
Waste 897.06 852.93 -44
Water 340.49 497.97 157
Total(B) 22,613.38 21,816.16 -797
Residential Population 10,682 13,480 2,798
MTCO2e/yr/SP 2.12 1.62 -0.50
BAAQMD Plan Level Significance
Threshold -- 6.6 --
Exceeds Threshold? -- No --
Source: MD Acoustics (see Appendix D).
See Table 4.8-3 for existing GHG emissions in the Planning Area.
Totals may not equal due to rounding.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 370
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-19 October 2022
As shown above in Table 4.7-4, in the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario the Planning Area would emit approximately 21,816 MTCO2e annually by 2040. Dividing through by the Planning Area’s residential population (13,480 residents) results in an efficiency metric of 1.62 MTCO2e/yr/SP for the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario. This does not exceed the BAAQMD threshold and shows a reduction from existing and future baseline conditions (the GHG efficiency occurring under the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project scenario would be approximately 24 percent less than Cumulative (2040) scenario conditions).
The primary source of project GHG emissions would be mobile sources, which represent approximately 76 percent of total annual GHG emissions occurring under Cumulative (2040) Plus Project growth conditions. The unmitigated mobile source emission estimates are conservative, since they do not take into account land use interactions (e.g., residential land use proximity to commercial land uses) and transit amenities (e.g., bus routes) that would likely reduce the number of vehicle trips generated in the Planning Area and the quantity of VMT occurring with the project in 2040. The next highest source of project GHG emissions would be energy sources, which would represent approximately 17 percent of total annual GHG emissions.
As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project growth projection would result in GHG emissions that would not exceed the BAAQMD plan-level significance threshold and would therefore have a less than significant impact.
Impact GHG-2 – The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less Than Significant Impact)
CARB Scoping Plan
As discussed in Section 4.8.2, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is CARB’s primary document used to ensure State GHG reduction goals are met. The plan identifies an increasing need for coordination among State, regional, and local governments to achieve the GHG emissions reductions that can be gained from local land use planning and decisions. The major elements of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which is designed to achieve the State’s 2030 GHG reduction goal, are listed in Section 4.8.2. Nearly all of the specific measures identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan would be implemented at the state level, with CARB and/or another state or regional agency having the primary responsibility for achieving required GHG reductions.
The project, therefore, would have limited ability to directly conflict with any of the specific measures identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Nonetheless, the overarching goal of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is to achieve a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by the Year 2030. To achieve this statewide goal, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends a statewide efficiency metric of six metric tons per capita by 2030 and two metric tons per capita by 2050. These statewide per capita targets are based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the State. Under an unmitigated scenario as shown in Table 4.7-4, implementation of the proposed project is estimated to result in a GHG emission efficiency of 3.9 MTCO2e per capita. Project growth would result in emissions
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 371
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-20 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
that meet the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan adjusted statewide 2040 metric of four MTCO2e per capita employed for this EIR.4
As discussed above, the project’s unmitigated GHG emissions would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan’s interpolated per capita GHG efficiency metric and would have a less than significant impact.
Impact GHG-3 – The project would not cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to greenhouse gases. (Less Than Significant Impact) As stated in Section 4.8.4, global climate change is the result of GHG emissions worldwide; individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change.
Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. As described under Impact GHG-1 and GHG-2, the project would result in GHG emissions that do not exceed the significance thresholds applied in this EIR and comply with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
4.7.5 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. June 2010, updated May 2017.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010.
_______. 2017. CalEEMod User Manual Appendix A Calculation Details. Prepared for CAPCOA.
Prepared by Trinity Consultants, Dallas TX. October 2017.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. Staff Report California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. Sacramento, CA. November 16, 2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf2009 _______. 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan – A Framework for Change. Endorsed by CARB December 2008. Sacramento, CA. May 11, 2009.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm _______. 2010. AB 32 Climate change, Scoping Plan Progress Report. September 2010. 4 The Project plans for growth through Year 2040. Therefore, the 2040 statewide efficiency metric is linearly derived from the State’s 2030 (6 MTCO2e per capita) and 2050 (2 MTCO2e per capita) targets.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 372
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-21 October 2022
_______. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_pl an.pdf
_______. 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf _______. 2018. Proposed Amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standards Regulation and to the Regulation on Commercialization of Alternative Diesel Fuels Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons” March 6, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/lcfs18/isor.pdf _______. 2018. SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. March 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/finaltargets2018.pdf.
_______. 2020. California Greenhouse Gas Emission by Scoping Plan Category (Thirteenth Edition: 2000 to 2018). October 15, 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. Integrated Energy Policy Report. 2015. _______. 2017. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards PreRulemaking. Docket Number 17- BSTD-01. April 24, 2017.
_______. 2018. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings 2019. December 2018.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf _______. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. January 2018.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022. C/CAG Model.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Earth System Research Laboratory. Global Monitoring Division.
May 5, 2021. Web. May 20, 2021. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Program Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/overview-renewable-fuelstandard. _______. 2016. EPA and DOT Finalize Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy0Duty Trucks. August 2016. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/epa-anddot-finalize-greenhouse-gas-and-fuel-efficiency-standards-heavy-duty-trucks
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 373
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-22 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
_______. 2021. Emissions & Generation Resources Integrated Database (eGRID). February 2021. https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-egrid
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 374
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.7-23 October 2022
List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
Acronym, Symbol, Abbreviation Description
AB Assembly Bill
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
BAU Business-As-Usual
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CEC California Energy Commission
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CH4 Methane
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EV Electric Vehicle
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LEV Low-Emission Vehicle
MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
MTCO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalents
MWh Megawatt-hours
N2O Nitrous Oxide
PFC Perfluorocarbon
ppm parts per million
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
SB Senate Bill
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SOI Sphere of Influence
SP Service Population
TDM Transportation Demand Management
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
% Percent
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 375
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gasses
4.7-24 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 376
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-1
October 2022
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials within the project area. It includes a description of the regulatory framework and analyzes impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed Focused GPU.
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
A “hazardous material” is defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 as, “any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Products as diverse as gasoline, paint solvents, film solvents, household cleaning products, refrigerants and radioactive substances are categorized as hazardous materials. What remains of hazardous material after use, or processing, is considered to be a hazardous waste.
Hazardous materials have also been known to infiltrate the groundwater, in some cases contaminating entire groundwater systems. There are currently no known regional plumes of contaminated groundwater within the project area, according to the County of San Mateo Health Services Agency and the State Water Board.
Hazardous Material Sites
Due to San Carlos’ history of industrial use, hazardous materials may be present in the soils and groundwater in or near the industrial areas, especially in the East Side and along portions of El Camino Real. Common hazardous materials in industrial areas include oils, fuels, paints, solvents, acids and bases, disinfectants, and metals. Legacy pollutants used in industrial practices up to the 1970s, such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), may also be present in these areas. The State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for maintaining a list of sites with active hazardous material users and/or generators and sites with historical or current environmental contamination. This list is known as the Cortese List (see description below under Section 4.1.2 Regulatory Setting) The Department is also responsible for coordinating the cleaning-up of contaminated sites. Figure HAZ-1 in Appendix A of the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element shows the locations of hazardous materials sites in San Carlos according to the DTSC’s records (Cortese List). Table HAZ-1 in Appendix A of the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element lists the hazardous materials sites with current or historic environmental contamination.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Hazardous waste generated by San Carlos residences is collected in part by the recycling and solid waste services management company at the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center, in part through San Mateo County Environmental Health HHW monthly drop-off appointment events in
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 377
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
San Mateo, and in part through other collection facilities. There are several other convenient locations for drop off of HHW including:
• Mercury thermometer exchange at the South Bayside System Authority wastewater treatment plant.
• A pharmaceutical drop-box is also available at the San Carlos Police Department. • Batteries, mobile phones and motor oil can be recycled curbside at your home or business.
Some HHW, including medical wastes, asbestos, tires, and explosives are not readily disposable within the City of San Carlos.
Airport Operations
The San Carlos Airport is located within the San Carlos city limit east of US 101, along the bay shoreline. The 160-acre airport is located on land owned by the County of San Mateo and managed by the San Mateo County Public Works Department. Private planes are the primary users of the San Carlos Airport and are utilized for both business and recreation. Due to the airport’s 2,600- foot runway, large aircraft, such as commercial jets, are not permitted to use the airport. The airport also allows private jets under 12,500 pounds to land and take off at any time, but activities such as student training are limited to daytime to meet noise abatement requirements. The airport houses approximately 500 aircraft and is the place of business for over 25 aviation related businesses, including a helicopter training school. Other airport services include emergency response functions such as Air-Ambulance, Medivac flights and law enforcement patrols.
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) serves as the Statemandated Airport Land Use Commission and is responsible for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize public exposure to excessive airport noise and safety hazards. The primary means by which this is accomplished is through the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport/Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by C/CAG in 2015. The CLUP is a State mandated document that addresses airport/land use compatibility related to proposed land use policy actions within the environs of San Carlos Airport.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Regulates chemical and hazardous materials use, storage, treatment, handling, transport, and disposal practices; protects workers and the community (along with CalOSHA, see below) and integrating the Federal Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act into California Legislation.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 378
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-3
October 2022
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Adopted in 1980, CERCLA was developed to remove contamination of water, air, and land resources from past chemical disposal practices. Also known as the “Superfund Act,” CERCLA contains a list of sites referred to as Superfund sites, where there is an imminent threat to human health. CERCLA collects taxes from the chemical and petroleum industries to clean abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous sites using short term and long-term responses techniques.
The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Federal law that regulates hazardous wastes from a ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach, meaning that all hazardous wastes are tracked and strictly regulated from generation to disposal, and waste generators are required to report use or transport of hazardous wastes to the EPA. Hazardous waste generators range from small producers such as dry cleaners and automobile repair facilities to larger producers such as hospitals and manufacturing operations. The EPA categorizes Small Quantity Generators (SQG) as those facilities that produce between 220.5 and 2,205 pounds (i.e., 100 and 1,000 kilograms) of hazardous waste per month. Facilities producing less than 220.5 pounds of hazardous waste per month are not subject to RCRA. Large Quantity Generators (LQG) produce 2,205 pounds or more hazardous waste per month. LQG and SQG facilities are subject to the storage and transportation requirements of RCRA.
The Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) Enacted to inform communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area, this Act requires the US EPA maintain and publish a list of toxic chemical releases, known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Facilities required to report include industrial uses that manufacture, process, or use significant amounts of chemicals. Reporting includes types and amounts of chemicals that are released each year into the air, water, and land or transferred off-site. Listing as a TRI facility doesn’t necessarily mean that releases are harmful to humans or the environment.
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Establishes and enforces Federal regulations related to health and safety of workers exposed to toxic and hazardous materials. OSHA also sets health and safety guidelines for construction activities and manufacturing facility operations.
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulates the shipment of hazardous material. DOT also administers the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) to clarify conflicting state, local, and federal regulations. HMTUSA requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations for the safe transport of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The Secretary also retains authority to designate materials as hazardous (along with EPA) when they pose unreasonable risks to health, safety, or property.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 379
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Standardized Emergency Management System and National Incident Management System (SEMS)
According to the State’s SEMS, local agencies have primary authority regarding rescue and treatment of casualties and making decisions regarding protective actions for the community.
When a major incident occurs, the first few moments are critical in terms of reducing loss of life and property. First responders must be sufficiently trained to understand the nature and the gravity of the event to minimize the confusion that inevitably follows catastrophic situations. This onscene authority rests with the local emergency services organization and the incident commander.
State
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) Responsible for promulgating and enforcing State health and safety standards and implementing Federal OSHA Laws. For example, CalOSHA’s regulatory scope includes provisions to minimize the potential for release of asbestos and lead during construction and demolition activities.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA)
The Cal EPA implements and enforces a statewide hazardous materials program known as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) established by Senate Bill 1802 to enable counties and local government to enforce the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following environmental and emergency management programs for hazardous materials:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans) • California Accidental Release Prevention Program
• Underground Storage Tank Program
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans
• Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs • California Uniform Fire Code, Hazardous Materials Management Plans, and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements
CUPAs are accountable for carrying out responsibilities previously handled by approximately 1,300 different state and local agencies.
CalEPA Office of Emergency Services (CalEPA/OES)
Cal/EPA establishes regulations governing the use of hazardous materials in the State to protect air, water, and soil. OES coordinates State and local agencies and resources for educating, planning, and warning citizens of hazardous materials and related emergencies, including organized response efforts in case of emergencies.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 380
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-5
October 2022
CALFIRE, Office of the State Fire Marshal (CAL FIRE-OSFM) The Office of the State Fire Marshal evaluates and provides technical assistance for the Hazardous Material Management Plan (HMMP), the Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS) and the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Programs. The HMMP and HMIS Program are closely tied to the Business Plan Program.
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law is administered by the California EPA to regulate hazardous wastes. Although the Hazardous Waste Control Law is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the federal EPA approves the California Hazardous Waste Control Program (which is charged with regulating the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste), both the state and federal laws apply in California. The Hazardous Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) 22 CCR Section 66261.10 provides that waste has “hazardous” characteristics if it has the following effects: [a](1) a waste that exhibits the characteristics may:
(A) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed or otherwise managed.
According to 22 CCR (Article 11, Chapter 3), substances having a characteristic of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity are considered hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have a practical use, such as material that has been abandoned, discarded, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability or death. For example, toxic substances can cause eye or skin irritation, disorientation, headache, nausea, allergic reactions, acute poisoning, chronic illness, or other adverse health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels (the level depends on the substance involved). Carcinogens (substances known to cause cancer) are a special class of toxic substances. Examples of toxic substances include most heavy metals, pesticides, and benzene (a carcinogenic component of gasoline). Ignitable substances (e.g., gasoline, hexane, and natural gas) are hazardous because of their flammable properties. Corrosive substances (e.g., strong acids and bases such as sulfuric (battery) acid or lye) are chemically active and can damage other materials or cause severe burns upon contact. Reactive substances (e.g., explosives, pressurized canisters, and pure sodium metal, which reacts violently with water) may cause explosions or generate gases or fumes.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 381
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
Other types of hazardous materials include radioactive and biohazardous materials.
Radioactive materials and wastes contain radioisotopes, which are atoms with unstable nuclei that emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability. Radioactive waste mixed with chemical hazardous waste is referred to as “mixed wastes.” Biohazardous materials and wastes include anything derived from living organisms. They may be contaminated with disease-causing agents, such as bacteria or viruses (22 CCR 66251.1 et seq.).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) DTSC regulates hazardous substances and wastes, oversees remedial investigations, protects drinking water from toxic contamination, and warns the public that could potentially be exposed to listed carcinogens. DTSC evaluates and provides technical assistance for the Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including Onsite Treatment (Tiered Permitting) and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition, EnviroStor is DTSC’s data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons to investigate further.
There are six hazardous waste sites currently mapped in San Carlos on the DTSC EnviroStor website, but no open investigations (DTSC EnviroStor).
Underground Tank Regulations
Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16 (Underground Tank Regulations) of the California Code of Regulations identifies the regulations applicable to new and existing underground storage tanks.
These regulations establish monitoring, maintenance, reporting, abatement, and closure procedures for all underground storage tanks in the state. These regulations are administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
California Highway Patrol (CHP)
The CHP has primary regulatory responsibility for the transportation of hazardous wastes and materials.
Cortese List
California Government Code Section 65962.5 established the "Cortese List", which requires state agencies to compile a list of all properties affected by hazardous waste and develop a framework for how they will continue to be monitored and addressed by the State. A site's presence on the list has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
California Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Division 7 of the California Water Code (Water Code) identifies the enforcement and implementation rights of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to remedy discharges to
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 382
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-7
October 2022
surface waters or groundwater that would or could violate water quality standards. Standard remedies include issuance of Cease-and-Desist Orders and cleanup and abatement procedures.
Code of Regulations Title 22
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations contains all applicable State and Federal laws governing hazardous wastes in the State. Title 22 is more stringent and broader in its coverage of wastes than Federal law. Chapter 51 (Site Remediation) identifies the minimum standards of performance for site investigations and response actions performed by the private sector in site cleanup efforts.
Hazardous waste is any waste with properties that make it potentially dangerous or harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous waste is defined in one of two ways. Waste is considered hazardous if it appears on one of the five lists created pursuant to the Federal Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The lists are known as the F-, K-, P-/U-, and M- lists and reflect non-specific source waste, source-specific waste, discarded commercial chemical products, discarded mercury-containing products, respectively. A waste may also be categorized as hazardous if it exhibits one of the four characteristics of hazardous materials: ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. Because of its toxicity, solid wastes containing certain levels of lead are considered hazardous and must be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with Federal and State law. In California, two thresholds have been established by State regulation to determine if a waste is hazardous due to its lead content. The Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) establishes a threshold of 1,000 milligrams (mg) of lead per one kilogram (kG) of waste. The Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) establishes a threshold of 5 mg of lead per liter (L) of waste extract solution. Hazardous Waste must be disposed of at Class I landfills that are specifically designed to accept hazardous waste, such as the Kettleman Hills Landfill in Kettleman City in Kings County.
California Asbestos Standards in Construction
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) enforces the California Asbestos Standards in Construction (8 CCR Section 1529). These standards regulate exposure to asbestos in all construction work including demolition of structures. These regulations establish entry and exit procedures after working in asbestos contaminated areas and establish specific control measures designed to protect workers depending on the type of asbestos they are handling.
Such procedures include minimum air circulations, use of respirators, wetting of materials, clothing laundering, construction and demolition equipment requirements, and shielding specifications. Notification procedures are also in place that require building owner and employee noticing as well as external and internal hazard signage. All asbestos workers are required to complete training programs and register as an asbestos contractor, depending on the type of asbestos being removed. Medical examination requirements are also required to monitor worker health, generally on an annual basis.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 383
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
California Construction Safety Orders for Lead
Title 8, Section 1532.2 (Lead) of the California Code of Regulations establishes the requirements for any construction worker who may be exposed to lead during demolition or salvage, removal or encapsulation, new construction, and cleanup activities. The construction safety orders establish an action level of 30 micrograms of lead per cubic meter (μg/cm3) of air calculated over an 8-hour time-weighted average without regard for the use of a respirator, meaning this is the limit where safety protocols must be initiated, such as use of a respirator. Under no circumstance may a worker be exposed to 50 μg/cm3 over an 8-hour weighted period. These regulations require implementation of engineering and work practice controls such as respiratory protection, protective clothing, housekeeping, hygiene practices, and signage requirements to meet worker exposure limits. Medical monitoring and training requirements are also identified.
Assembly Bill 2948
In response to the growing statewide concern of hazardous waste management, State Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner 1986) enacted legislation authorizing local governments to develop comprehensive hazardous waste management plans. The intent of each plan is to ensure that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazardous wastes generated within its jurisdiction.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (CERS Annual Submittal) In 1986, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) established the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) Program, which prevents or minimizes damage to the public and the environment from a release of hazardous materials. Under the Program, California businesses that handle hazardous materials were required to submit an HMBP each year.
Assembly Bill 1429, which was passed on July 9, 2019, would require a business with a facility that is not required to submit Tier II information pursuant to the above-mentioned federal provision and is not subject to the provisions governing those aboveground storage tanks to submit its business plan once every three years, instead of annually.
Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act, the State of California developed an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Rapid response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is an integral part of the plan, which is administered but the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The Office of Emergency Services coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the EPA, California Highway Patrol, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Air Quality Management Districts, and county disaster response offices.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 384
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-9
October 2022
The Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act
The Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act requires facilities to disclose to the State and Local Emergency Planning Committee the quantities and type of toxic chemicals stored. To avoid multiple reports to various agencies, the California Health and Safety Code requires notification of chemical inventories to the Administering Agency which is DTSC. Notification of chemical inventory is accomplished through completion of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and inventory.
Regional
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
One of nine regional boards in the State, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects surface and groundwater quality from pollutants discharged or threatened to be discharged to the waters of the State. The RWQCB issues and enforces National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and regulates leaking underground storage tanks and other sources of groundwater contamination.
The RWQCB most recently re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in May 2022 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (copermittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies (including the City of San Carlos) to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.
Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition. As of July 1, 2019, buildings constructed between 1955 and 1978 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures that may contain asbestos, and the manufacture of materials known to contain asbestos. The BAAQMD is vested with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified 10 days in advance of any
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 385
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
proposed demolition or abatement work. BAAQMD regulations must always be followed when removing asbestos or demolishing buildings.
Local
Hazardous Materials Response
The Hazardous Materials Response Team of San Mateo County responds to hazardous materials emergencies throughout the county. The team is comprised of the South County Fire Hazmat Team, the Environmental Health Division of the County Health Services Agency, and the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services.
Airport Land Use Commission
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) serves as the Statemandated Airport Land Use Commission and is responsible for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize public exposure to excessive airport noise and safety hazards. The primary means by which this is accomplished is through the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport/Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by C/CAG in 2015. The CLUP is a State mandated document that addresses airport/land use compatibility related to proposed land use policy actions within the environs of San Carlos Airport.
City of San Carlos General Plan
The currently adopted Environmental Management Element and Community Safety and Services Element of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan contain the following policies regarding flooding, emergency response, airport safety, wildfires, and hazards, and Hazardous Materials:
Goal EM-5: Assure a high level of domestic water quality, promote water conservation and reduce toxics in run-off, including stormwater and the sanitary sewer system.
Policy EM-5.1: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the city’s sanitary sewer and stormwater collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Policy EM-5.2: Promote the use of less toxic household and commercial cleaning materials.
Policy EM-5.7: Encourage site designs that manage the quantity and quality of storm water run-off.
Action EM-5.1: Evaluate amending the Zoning Code to maximize permeable surfaces or other water catchment methods for new development as applicable.
Action EM-5.2: Utilize bioswales and other bio-filtration systems as applicable to cleanse runoff before it enters creeks and the San Francisco Bay.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 386
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-11 October 2022
Action EM-5.4: Implement Climate Action Plan measures to provide for water-efficient landscaping.
Action EM-5.10: Implement the NPDES Stormwater Permit and for those properties exempt from the Permit, require a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including use of best management practices, to control erosion and sedimentation during construction.
Goal CSS-2 Reduce hazards associated with flooding and inundation.
Policy CSS-2.1: Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.
Policy CSS-2.2: Maintain a healthy riparian corridor in City-maintained flood control channels to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage and heavy undergrowth.
Policy CSS-2.3: Maintain a strong and enforceable Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance for all city creeks and their tributaries.
Policy CSS-2.4: Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.
Policy CSS-2.9 Continue to work with appropriate local, State and federal agencies (particularly FEMA) to maintain the most current flood hazard and flood-plain information and use it as a basis for project review and to guide development in accordance with federal, State and local standards.
Policy CSS-2.10: Reduce losses due to flooding by encouraging property owners who experience flood damage to reconstruct their properties in a flood-resistant manner.
Policy CSS-2.11: Participate in regional efforts to address flooding hazards associated with rising sea levels.
Policy CSS-2.12: Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff, so as to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.
Policy CSS-2.13: Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. To this end, the City shall ensure that its regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Goal CSS-3: Protect lives and property from risks associated with fire-related emergencies.
Policy CSS-3.1: Evaluate fire response needs of the Fire Department as new development and redevelopment continues within city limit.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 387
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Policy CSS-3.2: Participate in fire prevention and life safety programs with neighboring jurisdictions and other governmental agencies as needed.
Policy CSS-3.4: Maintain participation with the Joint Powers Authority Agreement with all fire departments in San Mateo County to ensure required response times for initial emergency deployment personnel and equipment.
Policy CSS-3.5 Preserve the local government agreement with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for responses in the Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ) within the Wildland Urban Interface Areas of the city. Continue to provide BSCFD equipment and personnel under the mutual aid agreement, with the State of California Office of Emergency Service (OES) Region II. This continued “reverse support” enables the City of San Carlos to receive “no cost” statewide mutual aid in the event of a declared large-scale emergency.
Policy CSS-3.6: Continue to enforce building code regulations that minimize fire hazards in areas subject to a very high fire severity zone (VHFSZ) risk west of Alameda de las Pulgas and prohibit any structural development in areas where wildland urban fire hazards cannot be mitigated under an agreement addressing alternate means of protection and materials agreement.
Policy CSS-3.7: Maintain City-owned open space lands in a manner that minimizes and reduces fire hazard threats to fixed public and private properties, by reducing hazardous vegetation fuels.
Policy CSS-3.8: Provide adequate access for fire and emergency service vehicles to new development in hillside areas, as per the International Fire Code and the Urban Wildland Interface Code.
Policy CSS-3.9: Support “early review” of proposed development by the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department and institute impact fees to ensure adequate all-risk fire equipment for the community.
Policy CSS-3.10: Continue to require all new development to provide all necessary water service, fire hydrants and road improvements consistent with City standards and the California Fire Code.
Policy CSS-3.11: Ensure that in existing developed areas within the city there is an acceptable level of fire safety and emergency medical/paramedic services.
Policy CSS-3.12: Incorporate drought-resistant and fire resistant plants in capital improvement projects in areas that are subject to wildland fires.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 388
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-13 October 2022
Policy CSS-3.13: Ensure that property owners maintain property in a manner that minimizes fire hazards through the removal of vegetation, hazardous structures and materials and debris as governed under the City Municipal Code for enforcement.
Action CSS-3.1: Update the City’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan as appropriate.
Action CSS-3.2: Enforce the established residential fire sprinkler ordinance.
Goal CSS-4: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.
Policy CSS-4.1: Prohibit uses involving the manufacturing of hazardous materials throughout the city. Hazardous materials are defined in Chapter 6.95, Section 25501 0-1 of the Health and Safety Code. This policy applies only to the direct manufacture of hazardous substances. It does not apply to the storage or use of such materials in conjunction with permitted industrial uses.
Policy CSS-4.2: Require producers of and users of hazardous materials in San Carlos to conform to all local, State and federal regulations regarding the production, disposal and transportation of these materials.
Policy CSS-4.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria and standards enforcement.
Policy CSS-4.4: Mitigate indoor air intrusion potential in areas of new development or redevelopment where the property is located above known volatile compound plumes.
Policy CSS-4.5: Where deemed necessary, based on the history of land use, require site assessment for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior to approving development project applications.
Policy CSS-4.6: Prohibit land uses and development which emit odors, particulates, light, glare, or other environmentally sensitive contaminants from being located within proximity of schools, community centers, senior homes and other sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors shall be prohibited from locating in the proximity of environmentally sensitive contaminants.
Policy CSS-4.7: Require the preparation of emergency response plans as part of use applications for all large generators of hazardous waste as required by federal law.
Policy CSS-4.8: Actively promote public education, research and information dissemination on hazards materials.
Policy CSS-4.9: Encourage the use of green building practices to reduce potentially hazardous materials in construction materials.
Policy CSS-5.1: Maintain land use and development in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport that are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria and guidelines contained
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 389
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
in the adopted Airport/Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP) for the environs of San Carlos Airport, including noise, safety, height and avigation easement requirements.
Action CSS-5.1: Submit proposed land use policy actions (general plans/amendments, specific plans/amendments, rezonings, etc.) and related development plans, if any, that affect property located within the Area B portion of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for San Carlos Airport, to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review/action, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), prior to final action by the City.
Goal CSS-6: Continue effective emergency response procedures to ensure public safety in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy CSS-6.2: Preserve a Basic Emergency Operation Plan consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS).
Policy CSS-6.9: Evaluate safety service limitations on an annual basis to provide for adequate levels of service.
These General Plan Community Safety and Services Element policies have been revised in the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Element. See impact discussion below.
4.8.3 Significance Thresholds
Per the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
e) For development within the project area located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 390
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-15 October 2022
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation
This section describes potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials which could result from the implementation of the General Plan Update and recommends mitigation measures as needed to reduce significant impacts. Unless otherwise noted, impact discussions apply to both the Housing Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element aspects of the project.
Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Hazardous materials include substances that are flammable, corrosive, explosive, radioactive, infectious, thermally unstable, and poisonous. Future residential and mixed-use development facilitated by implementation of the project would not likely include the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with these uses. These uses would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers. Construction activities at project sites would involve the short-term use of hazardous materials, such as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, wet concrete and asphalt, paint, and other hazardous construction materials.
All hazardous substances associated with future residential and mixed-use development construction and operations would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of in conformance with applicable regulations, including:
• The Resource Conservation Recovery Act, which provides the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes;
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which regulates closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
• The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on US roadways;
• The International Fire Code, which creates procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials;
• California Code of Regulations Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste; and • The California Code of Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid wastes.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 391
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above, construction activities would involve the short-term use of hazardous materials, such as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, wet concrete and asphalt, paint, and other hazardous construction materials. All spills or leaks of petroleum products during construction would be required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable State and local regulations. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (San Mateo County Health) would be required throughout the duration of construction. In addition, soil off hauled during grading and excavation would typically be tested to determine the appropriate method of disposal. Therefore, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the accidental release of hazardous materials during project construction would not occur.
As previously discussed, the project area contains numerous sites containing contaminated soil and groundwater, as identified on the Cortese List. Soil and groundwater contaminants from these sites could potentially be released if flooding were to occur during storm events. The majority of the hazardous waste and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites on the Cortese List occur on commercial and/or industrial properties in the area between El Camino Real and US 101, which coincides with the area in which the majority of the 100-year flood hazard zones are mapped (primarily the El Camino Real and Industrial Road corridors). These areas also contain mapped 500-year flood hazard zones (refer to Figure 4.9-1).
Goals, Polices & Actions
The updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains the following goals, policies, and actions to address the release of hazardous materials into the environment and flooding hazards, which include flooding that would result in the release of hazardous materials (soil and groundwater contaminants) into the environment:
Goal ESPS-2: Reduce hazards associated with flooding and inundation.
Policy ESPS-2.1: Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.
Policy ESPS-2.2: Maintain and prioritize restoration of a healthy riparian corridor in Citymaintained flood control channels such as Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek to reduce the risk
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 392
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-17 October 2022
of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage, and heavy undergrowth; and increase community access to channels with improved stormwater and flood management strategies.
Policy ESPS-2.3: Maintain a strong and enforceable Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance for all city creeks and their tributaries.
Policy ESPS -2.4: Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.
Policy ESPS -2.5: Evaluate flood hazards on a watershed level, taking into account all sources of water and the eventual end point of each source.
Policy ESPS -2.6: Promote City staff knowledge and training on the relationship between watershed health and flood hazards.
Policy ESPS -2.7: Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on approaches to flooding and creek maintenance.
Policy ESPS -2.8: Continue to work with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies (such as FEMA, San Mateo County OneShoreline Program, City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) of San Mateo County, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to: (1) maintain the most current flood hazard and floodplain information and use it as a basis for project review; and (2) create public-private partnerships to guide development in accordance with federal, State, and local standards.
Policy ESPS -2.10: Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.
Policy ESPS -2.11: Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. To this end, the City shall ensure that its regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Action ESPS -2.1: Consider participating in a regional Watershed Management Plan to perform technical analysis to understand geotechnical, biological, and hydraulic conditions to model the hydrography of the city and identify options to reduce flooding risk and where opportunities exist to restore creeks within the watershed to a more naturalized condition.
Options could include detaining or retaining stormwater runoff in upper portions of the watershed, adding capacity in the lower portions of the watershed and maintaining existing creek and channel capacity through improved maintenance. The Watershed Management Plan would seek to balance the two primary functions of creeks: flood control and riparian habitat.
Action ESPS-2.2: Amend the Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance to: (1) include all creeks and tributaries, including Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek, to strengthen the effectiveness of existing policies and to create vital and accessible community open space with
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 393
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-18 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
improved stormwater and flood management strategies; (2) increase the required setbacks and landscaping provisions from the existing creek top to improve stormwater detention capacity and to help address flooding issues and creek restoration; (3) prohibit general vehicle access along the creek within the Stream Development Ordinance overlay district.
Action ESPS -2.6: Seek to have property owners downstream of city limit maintain drainage channels in a responsible manner to avoid flooding.
Action ESPS -2.7: Initiate flood insurance rate map revisions for City projects.
Goal ESPS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.
Policy ESPS-5.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria, and standards enforcement.
Conformance with the above goals, policies and actions of the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element, listed above, would reduce potential impacts of release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level.
Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction activities associated with future residential and mixed-use development and redevelopment could potentially occur in the vicinity of existing schools. Potential constructionrelated air toxics impacts to schools and other sensitive receptors are discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality. However, as discussed above, construction activities would involve the short-term use of hazardous materials, the handling and disposal of which would be subject to regulation by the California Code of Regulations, Titles 22 and 27, and would not result in a significant hazard to the public. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to existing schools.
Impact HAZ-4: The project area contains sites that are included on lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, however, goals, policies and actions addressing hazardous materials contained in the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. (Less Than Significant Impact).
There are numerous Cortese List sites located within the project area. The majority of these are LUST sites that have been remediated and their clean-up operations completed. Cases that are still active are regulated by the DTSC, San Mateo County Environmental Health Division, State Water Quality Control Board, and the Army Corp of Engineers.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 394
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-19 October 2022
Goals, Polices & Actions
The updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains the following goal, policies, and actions that would reduce the potential impacts to the public or the environment from hazardous materials sites:
Goal ESPS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.
Policy ESPS -5.2: Require producers of and users of hazardous materials in San Carlos to conform to all local, State. and federal regulations regarding the production, disposal, and transportation of these materials.
Policy ESPS -5.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria, and standards enforcement.
Policy ESPS -5.4: Mitigate indoor air intrusion potential in areas of new development or redevelopment where the property is located above known volatile compound plumes.
Policy ESPS -5.5: Where deemed necessary, based on the history of land use, require site assessment for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior to approving development project applications.
Policy ESPS -5.6: Prohibit land uses and development which emit odors, particulates, gases, or other environmentally sensitive contaminants from being located within proximity of schools, community centers, residential areas, and other sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors shall be prohibited from locating in the proximity of environmentally sensitive contaminants.
Policy ESPS -5.8: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on hazards materials.
Conformance with the goal, policies and actions addressing hazardous materials contained in the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Impact HAZ-5: The project is located within two miles of the San Carlos Airport, but would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The San Carlos Airport is located in the northeast corner of the City, between the US 101 freeway and the San Francisco Bay.
Goals, Polices & Actions
In order to address compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses, the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains the following goal, policy and action:
-
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 395
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-20 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Goal ESPS -6: Minimize risks associated with operations at the San Carlos Airport.
Policy ESPS -6.1: Maintain land use and development in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport that are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria and guidelines contained in the adopted Airport/Land Use Compatibility Plan for the environs of San Carlos Airport, including noise, safety, height, and avigation easement requirements.
Action ESPS -6.1: Submit proposed land use policy actions (general plans/amendments, specific plans/amendments, rezonings, etc.) and related development plans, if any, that affect property located within the Area B portion of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for San Carlos Airport, to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review/action, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), prior to final action by the City.
Implementation of Policy ESPS -5.1 (previously described), ESPS -6.1 and Action ESPS -6.1, as well as implementation of the appropriate provisions of the CLUP, described above, would reduce potential safety hazards and excessive noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Impact HAZ-6: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element, State law requires the City of San Carlos to have established emergency preparedness procedures to respond to a variety of natural and man-made disasters that could affect the community. In the event of an emergency, the City will respond according to the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) developed by the State. The SEMS system establishes a hierarchy of response, with local government as the first responders. If San Carlos does not have sufficient resources to respond to a disaster, the County of San Mateo would lend resources. Mutual Aid agreements between various agencies would be enacted all the way to the State level.
San Carlos established an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) program in 1987. The City’s Emergency Response Plan establishes evacuation routes, identifies agencies responsible for emergency response and summarizes and assesses potential threats and hazards. Additionally, as required by California Government Code 3100, all City employees must report to City Hall, after ensuring the welfare of their families, to assist in emergency response in the event of a disaster.
San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for coordinating emergency response in the county. The OES operates under a Joint Powers Agreement with the 20 incorporated cities in the county. The Emergency Services Council, which consists of a representative from each of the 20 incorporated cities and a member of the County Board of Supervisors, governs the OES.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 396
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-21 October 2022
Software Applications
SMC Alert is a software application used to send emergency alerts, notifications, and updates to cell phones, mobile devices, home phones, work, and/or e-mail accounts. In the event of an emergency, public safety agencies such as the City of San Carlos are able to provide emergency information directly to the community. These messages provide the community with instructions, orders, and updates. The SMC Alert system is managed by the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services. The service is free to all and is available to all cities, towns, and special districts within San Mateo County. Alerts may also be sent by local fire, police, and emergency operations managers from other cities within San Mateo County. Alert types may include life safety, fire, weather, accidents involving utilities, or roadway or disaster notifications.
Zonehaven is an application that provides a common operating framework for mutual aid and evacuation planning. Zonehaven’s evacuation management platform assists emergency services and increases efficiency with seamless collaboration between fire agencies, law enforcement, Office of Emergency Services, and the community. Zonehaven’s community evacuation interface promotes safety and security by providing community members with their zone and an up-to-date evacuation status. Zonehaven incorporates local weather conditions, geographic data, and local knowledge into simulations to provide an accurate emergency situation scenario. Using local traffic data, Zonehaven’s network analysis algorithms identify key intersections and choke points so emergency management agencies can define zones to reduce gridlock and enable fire and law enforcement to support evacuations more easily. In the event of an evacuation, models can be generated to enable fire and law enforcement to look ahead at what may come in the system and the application can be switched over to training mode to run a rapid simulation that provides 1-, 3- and 5-hour predictions to provide recommendations for evacuation zone sequencing.
San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan
The 2014 San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) outlines how the City of San Carlos, its government, stakeholder agencies, community-based organizations, business community, and residents will coordinate a response to major emergencies and disasters. The EOP identifies operational strategies and plans for managing inherently complex and potentially catastrophic events. The City of San Carlos has officially adopted and integrated the following emergency management, response, and coordination systems:
• Incident Command System (ICS)
• Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)
• National Incident Management System (NIMS)
The EOP addresses the four phases of emergency management: Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 397
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-22 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Goal, Policies & Actions
The updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains the following Goal, Policies, and Actions to address potential impacts related to emergency response and/or evacuations:
Goal ESPS -7: Continue effective emergency response procedures to ensure public safety in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy ESPS -7.1: Display leadership in the preparation for natural and man-made disasters by taking a proactive rather than a reactive approach.
Policy ESPS -7.2: Preserve a Basic Emergency Operation Plan consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS).
Policy ESPS -7.3: Maintain City Hall as the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in San Carlos and provide for fully functional back up EOC for City staff.
Policy ESPS -7.4: Coordinate the preparation for natural and man-made disasters with the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services, neighboring jurisdictions, and other governmental agencies.
Policy ESPS -7.5: Inform the public about disaster preparedness by providing information on supplies, training, evacuation routes, communication systems, and shelter locations.
Policy ESPS -7.6: Make available to the community, programs and resources relating to disaster preparedness.
Policy ESPS -7.7: Support the efforts of neighborhood and civic organizations to prepare for disasters if City resources are not available.
Policy ESPS -7.8: Identify and develop communication systems, evacuation methods, shelter locations and other services for special needs populations.
Policy ESPS -7.9: Evaluate safety service limitations on an annual basis to provide for adequate levels of service.
Policy ESPS -7.10: Identify potential emergency routes and suggest methods for operational needs for first responders.
Policy ESPS -7.11: Establish the capability to re-locate critical emergency response facilities such as fire, police, and essential services facilities, if needed, in areas that minimize their exposure to flooding, seismic effects, fire, or explosion.
Policy ESPS -7.12: Develop a procedure to quantify community emergency preparedness levels.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 398
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-23 October 2022
Action ESPS -7.1: Evaluate the Emergency Operation Plan on an annual basis and revise as needed to promote disaster preparedness.
Action ESPS -7.2: Coordinate emergency response procedures with acute care medical facilities in San Mateo County to ensure adequate preparedness for hospital patients and staff.
Action ESPS -7.3: Participate in regional disaster event simulations semi-annually by using the primary EOC and methods for implementing a back-up EOC.
Action ESPS -7.4: Create a back-up EOC for City staff. Enter into a shared EOC agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction or County in the event City Hall is rendered inoperable as an EOC.
Action ESPS -7.5: Participate in San Mateo County OES preparedness exercises and disaster simulations.
Action ESPS -7.6: Encourage City employees through a volunteer program to obtain training in disaster preparedness and basic first aid skills.
Action ESPS -7.7: Maintain and enhance the community disaster preparedness programs.
Action ESPS -7.8: Identify the need for community awareness and education programs for residents. Develop programs to respond to identified needs.
Action ESPS -7.9: Disseminate semi-annually, disaster preparedness information to residents through the city web site, newsletters, e-notify, newspaper articles, or other methods.
Action ESPS -7.10: Make available multi-language disaster preparedness information.
Action ESPS -7.11: Identify and program for emergency supplies through the EOC program in public parks.
The policies and actions listed above, contained in the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element, would assure that it’s adoption would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with any of the City’s emergency response or evacuation plans.
Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the federal, state, or local government.
In State Responsibility Areas (SRA), which are defined according to land ownership, population density, and land use, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has a legal responsibility to provide fire protection. Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) include incorporated cities and cultivated agriculture lands. In LRA, fire protection is provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, or counties, or by under contract to local government.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 399
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-24 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
San Carlos fire service is provided under contract by the City of Redwood City Fire Department.
It provides fire protection, hazardous materials response, disaster preparedness, and emergency medical response. A portion of the San Carlos Sphere of Influence is under the SRA, and would therefore be protected by CAL FIRE.
According to the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element, the foothill neighborhoods west of Alameda de las Pulgas are designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFSZ) by CAL FIRE. The Heather Elementary School and many homes in the western hills are also located within the VHFSZ designation.
Goals, Polices & Actions
The majority of proposed 6th Cycle housing sites and properties proposed for rezoning are not located within these VHFSZ-designated areas, however, the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains the following goal, policies, and actions to address potential impacts related to wildland fires citywide:
Goal ESPS -3: Agency Coordination: A resilient San Carlos is well prepared to minimize risks associated with wildfire.
Policy ESPS 3.1: Promote and improve, as necessary, inter-jurisdictional consultation and communication regarding disaster or emergency plans of San Carlos with adjacent agencies including but not limited to San Mateo County, Redwood City, Belmont, and CAL FIRE.
Action ESPS 3.1: Maintain participation in the Joint Powers Authority Agreement with all fire departments in San Mateo County to ensure required response times for initial emergency deployment personnel and equipment.
Action ESPS 3.2: Preserve the local government agreement with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for responses in the Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ) within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas of the city. Continue to provide equipment and personnel under the mutual aid agreement, with the State of California Office of Emergency Service (OES) Region II. This continued “reverse support” enables the City of San Carlos to receive “no cost” statewide mutual aid in the event of a declared large-scale emergency.
Action ESPS 3.3: Collaborate with the regional fire agencies on strategies available to maintain defensible space, diverse plant composition (e.g., less combustible native plants), undertake appropriate thinning of vegetation, and maintain fuel breaks without permanently damaging native habitat.
Facilities and Training
Policy ESPS-3.2: Conduct annual training for fire, emergency medical, and police staff including cross training with adjacent automatic or mutual aid emergency response
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 400
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-25 October 2022
departments. Regularly maintain, test, and update training and equipment to meet current standards.
Policy ESPS-3.3: Ensure adequate Fire Department resources (fire stations, personnel, and equipment) to meet response time standards, keep pace with growth, and provide a high level of service to the community.
Action ESPS-3.4: Continue to work with the Redwood City Fire Department to ensure that fire services are maintained at adequate levels. With subsequent Safety Element updates, assess and project future emergency service needs. Continue to monitor service area to ensure that all San Carlos areas have fire service. Monitor the City of San Carlos’ fire protection rating and work with the Redwood City and San Mateo County Fire Departments to correct deficiencies and to ensure ongoing training, including cross training is conducted.
Action ESPS-3.5: Train and educate public volunteers in basic fire safety response.
Land Use Planning
Policy ESPS-3.4: Locate essential public facilities out of high-risk, wildfire-prone areas including the VHFHSZ unless mitigation measures, above the minimum fire protection standards, are installed.
Policy ESPS-3.5: Prioritize infill development opportunities to prevent increased development in the WUI and Very High Fire Severity Zones (VHFSZ).
Policy ESPS-3.6: Minimize new development within the VHFSZ.
Policy ESPS-3.7: Consider the preservation of undeveloped ridgelines to reduce fire risk and improve fire protection.
Policy ESPS-3.8: Regularly review and confirm the City’s re-development policy for all structures in VHFSZs after large fires. If the City has an unwritten policy, adopt a written redevelopment policy.
Policy ESPS-3.9: Incorporate or require the incorporation of fire safety features in new development and re-development.
Policy ESPS-3.10: Require new residential developments to have adequate fire protection; and be more wildfire resistant by establishing greenbelt zones for fire resistant landscaping.
Policy ESPS-3.11: Require new residential development to be designed in such a manner that reduces wildfire hazard and improves defensibility (e.g. clustering lots, managed greenbelts, water storage, fuel modification sones, and vegetation setbacks.) Action ESPS-3.6: Discourage critical facilities being in the VHFSZ.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 401
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-26 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Action ESPS-3.7: Periodically re-evaluate the City’s policy allowing rebuilding in the VHFSZ.
If the policy is unwritten, adopt a formal written policy.
Action ESPS-3.8: When a fire has occurred in the VHFSZ, evaluate if street design and size can be reconfigured to improve emergency access and evacuation efficiency.
Action ESPS-3.9: If development is permitted within the VHFSZ, require:
• a Fire Protection Plan addressing: risk analysis, fire response capabilities, fire safety requirements (defensible space, infrastructure, and building ignition resistance), mitigation measures and design considerations for non-conforming fuel modification, and wildfire education maintenance and limitations;
• landscape/fuel modification installation, incorporating open areas to complement defensible spaces, identifying possible refuge areas, and mapping and providing multiple ingress and egress routes;
• resident evacuation plans and ways to effectively communicate those plans, including identifying the location and direction of evacuation routes and at least two points of ingress and egress; and
• a roadside fuel reduction plan to prevent fires along public roads caused by vehicles.
Action ESPS-3.10: Enforce fire standards and regulations while reviewing building plans and conducting building inspections.
Water Supply
Policy ESPS-3.12: Ensure adequate water supply is available.
Action ESPS-3.12 - Require new development projects have adequate water supplies to meet the fire-suppression needs of the project without compromising existing fire suppression services to existing uses.
Action ESPS-3.13: Work with water suppliers (Cal Water) to:
• maintain and ensure the long-term integrity of future water supply for fire suppression needs;
• ensure that water supply infrastructure adequately supports existing and future development and redevelopment;
• provide adequate water flow to combat structural and wildland fires, including during peak domestic demand periods. Water systems shall equal or exceed the standards of the latest edition of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1142, “Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire-Fighting.”;
• ensure water infrastructure can provide for peak fire flow; and • identify where water infrastructure does not allow for peak fire flow and develop a plan to mitigate the deficiencies.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 402
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-27 October 2022
Construction and Property Maintenance
Policy ESPS-3.13: Ensure new and existing public and privately owned properties are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes and reduces fire hazard threats and has adequate fire protection.
Action ESPS-3.14: Condition all new development and redevelopment to have adequate fire protection, incorporate and maintain fire safe design, including fuel modification zones, defensible space, two ingress/egress points, emergency vehicle access, and visible home addressing and street signage.
Action ESPS-3.15: Require the use of fire-retardant roofing material for all new construction and major remodels involving roof additions. Encourage property owners with shake shingle roofs to upgrade to fire-retardant materials.
Action ESPS-3.16: Continue to enforce the brush clearance/weed abatement program for both private and public roads as well as City-owned open spaces.
Action ESPS-3.17: Continue code enforcement programs requiring private and public property owners to maintain buildings and properties to prevent blighted conditions, remove excessive or overgrown vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, weeds), and remove litter, rubbish, and illegally dumped items from properties.
Action ESPS-3.18: Seek grants and other funding sources to assist low-income residents with home hardening efforts.
Action ESPS-3.19: Adopt an ordinance or update existing ordinances to require development standards that meet or exceed title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 (commencing with section 1270) (SRA Fire Safe Regulations) and title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations) for SRAs and/or VHFHSZs..
Action ESPS-3.20: Within the VHFSZ, the City’s building and planning departments will work with local fire departments, community organizations, and other responsible organizations to require and ensure:
• the installation of fire protection water system for all new construction projects including fire hydrant instillation, fire sprinkler, or suppression systems, and providing adequate fire flow;
• the long-term maintenance of defensible space clearances around structures, subdivisions, and fuel breaks; and
• all structures rebuilt/re-developed after a large fire to comply with building and fire codes in effect at the time of the re-development.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 403
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-28 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Action ESPS-3.21: Conduct a survey of existing residential structures within the VHFSZ identifying buildings that do not comply with fire safety standards. Consult with property owners to bring those properties into compliance with the most current building and fire safety standards.
Action ESPS-3.22: Consider developing or improving structure hardening standards for community refuges (such as schools, hospitals, evacuation centers).
Action ESPS-3.23: Evaluate the City’s roadways regarding access, alignments, etc. to facilitate fire, police, and ambulance access and resident egress in case of an emergency.
Access and Evacuation
Policy ESPS-3.14: Provide adequate evacuation routes and access for fire and emergency service vehicles to all San Carlos areas.
Policy ESPS-3.15: Identify and implement measures to mitigate the single access roads, as feasible.
Action ESPS-3.24: Identify streets and key intersections that, due to pavement width, hairpin turns, and tight curves, if not cleared of vehicles, may interfere with emergency vehicle access and/or resident evacuation during a fire.
Action ESPS-3.25: Identify the potential for street widening and improvement during regular Capital Improvement project maintenance, e.g., utility undergrounding, resurfacing, and American with Disabilities (ADA) compliance.
Action ESPS-3.26: Prohibit parking on one or both sides of a street identified as having the potential to interfere with emergency vehicle access and/or resident evacuation during a fire, when Red Flag alerts have been issued.
Action ESPS-3.27: In conjunction with the use of the Zonehaven system, supplement the evacuation plan, with special emphasis placed on the areas that do not have sufficient access and egress. Recommend improvements to ensure adequate evacuation capabilities.
Action ESPS-3.28: Conduct a study to review evacuation routes, their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios as set forth in AB 747. Determine remedial actions, as appropriate. Update evacuation plans with each update of the Safety Element to address changes in at-risk areas and populations.
Goal ESPS -4: Develop a community that proactively prevents wildfires and protects life, property, and infrastructure from urban and wildfire impacts.
Policy ESPS-4.1: Provide public education to promote community awareness and preparedness for self-action in the event of a major disaster or emergency.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 404
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.8-29 October 2022
Action ESPS-4.1: Partner with Redwood City Fire Department, San Mateo Sheriff Department, neighboring cities, regional agencies, local school districts, local businesses, and community organizations to conduct emergency and disaster preparedness exercises that test operational and emergency response plans (including evacuation routes) and prepare and conduct public outreach regarding evacuation procedures and routes and defensible space.
Action ESPS-4.2: Identify at-risk populations that would be vulnerable during wildfire evacuations and provide information to the at-risk residents regarding defensible space and evacuation routes.
Action ESPS-4.3: Prepare and make available to the public a current map of areas subject to wildland fires as provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protect (CAL FIRE).
Action ESPS-4.4: Implement a fire hazards education program to minimize risk for residential, commercial, and institutional uses.
• Provide training opportunities for residents for fuel modification methods, practices, and materials.
• Prepare and distribute two vegetation lists – one identifies recommended vegetation in the VHFSZ and the other identifies prohibited vegetation in the VHFSZ.
Action ESPS-4.5: Create and promote enrollment in a San Carlos emergency reverse dial program. Work with vulnerable populations to ensure enrollment.
Action ESPS-4.6: Consider establishing an outdoor warning system in the VHFSZ designed to alert residents about possible fire danger.
Implementation of the above-listed Agency Coordination, Facilities and Training, Land Use Planning, Water Supply, Construction and Property Maintenance, and Access and Evacuation goals, policies and actions contained in the updated Environmental Safety and Public Services Element would reduce the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires to future development. This would be a less than significant impact.
4.8.5 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2022. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed August 4, 2022 at
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2022. Cortese List Data Resources.
Accessed August 4, 2022 at https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). 2015. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. October 2015.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 405
Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-30 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor, “List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.” Accessed August 4, 2022 at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_ type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AN D+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor, “Department of Toxic Substances Control - Envirostor Public Data Export - hazardouswastesites” Accessed August 4, 2022 at https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/DTSC::department-of-toxic-substances-controlenvirostor-public-data-export/explore?layer=1&location=37.505629%2C122.253728%2C18.00&showTable=true San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES). 2014. First Revised and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Organization. Accessed August 4, 2022 at
https://hsd.smcsheriff.com/sites/default/files/downloadables/October%2017,%202014%20JP A.pdf.
San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Health (San Mateo County Health). 2022.
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Accessed August 4, 2022 at https://www.smchealth.org/hazardous-materials-cupa.
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2022. GeoTracker, “List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.” Accessed August 4, 2022 at
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&business_name =&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS= &BRANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&Search=Search.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 406
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-1
October 2022
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes the existing hydrologic and water quality conditions within the project area.
It includes a description of the regulatory framework and analyzes impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed Focused GPU.
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Watersheds
The project area encompasses portions of four San Mateo County watersheds that drain to San Francisco Bay. Belmont Creek begins along the hills west of Belmont and flows east for about three miles until it drains into Steinberger Slough. In 1878, a dam was created in Belmont Creek to create Water Dog Lake, which is located less than one mile northwest of the San Carlos City limits. The southeast portion of the Belmont Creek watershed is located within San Carlos. The Pulgas Creek watershed drains about 3.5 square miles. A large portion of the creek channel is modified, and flows in underground culverts through the City. It daylights on the east side of El Camino Real and flows in a northeasterly direction, crossing under US 101 before entering into Smith Slough near the Bair Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Greenwood Drainage watershed includes a narrow riparian corridor surrounding a small creek that flows through the southeastern part of San Carlos (Brittan Creek), between Greenwood Avenue and Howard Avenue, west of El Camino Real. The creek channel is culverted at El Camino Real, but also drains to Smith Slough east of US 101. The Cordilleras Creek watershed drains about 3.3 square miles. The creek, which forms the southern border of the City, originates in the Pulgas Ridge Open Space district and discharges into Smith and/or Steinberger Sloughs, depending on tidal and creek flow conditions.
Groundwater
The City of San Carlos is located within the San Mateo Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Mateo Subbasin is bounded by the Westside Basin to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, San Francisquito Creek to the south and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The Subbasin has two main water-bearing units: the Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium and the Santa Clara Formation. The alluvium is the most important water-bearing unit in the Subbasin, and most of the wells in the Subbasin draw water from the deeper aquifers of this unit.
A relatively shallow water table aquifer overlies the aquifers in the lowland areas. Groundwater is commonly found at less than five feet below grade in the flatland areas.
Water Quality
The health of the watersheds in San Carlos is typical of urbanized areas. Upland sections of the creeks tend to have less pollution while urbanized portions of the waterways contain contaminants.
Various contaminants have been identified in San Carlos creeks including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which can persist in the tissues of animals found in the creeks, as well as ultimately pollute the Bay. The City considers the habitat functions of streams and riparian
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 407
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
corridors a priority and, therefore, developed watershed protection mechanisms such as creek setbacks, regulations for construction adjacent to creeks and pesticide application in watershed areas.
Flooding
Flooding and Climate Change
As discussed in the proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element, inland flooding can cause significant harm to buildings, people, and infrastructure. Floodwater can be deep enough to drown people and may move fast enough to carry people or heavy objects (such as cars) away.
Flooding can be caused by heavy rainfall, long periods of moderate rainfall, or clogged storm drains during periods of rainfall. In rare instances, a break in a water pipe or water tank can also cause flooding. Storm drainage systems throughout San Carlos collect stormwater runoff from streets and convey flows to discharge points at local receiving waters to prevent flooding, although the capacity of these systems are designed based the frequency interval of a typical heavy winter storm (i.e., a 10-year storm) and may not be designed to accommodate more intense storms anticipated under climate change conditions.
What is currently considered a 100-year flood, or a flood that has a 1-percent chance of occurring annually, may occur more often due to climate change. The inland flood hazard areas are primarily located along the Bay shore, Pulgas Creek, Cordilleras Creek, and Belmont Creek.
During strong storms and king tides, bay shoreline flooding may damage or destroy commercial buildings in low-lying areas in eastern San Carlos; disrupt transportation routes, such as Highway 101, Shoreway Road, Industrial Road, Holly Street, Old County Road, and Brittan Avenue; and harm important economic assets, such as the Aviation Museum, industrial and manufacturing centers, biotechnology companies, and major employers. Essential infrastructure, such as the San Carlos Airport, bridges, electric vehicle charging stations, solid waste facilities, and water and wastewater infrastructure, may be frequently temporarily inundated, causing them and the community services they support to not function as needed.
Persons experiencing homelessness may live in open spaces along creeks, persons without access to lifelines, or with limited income or access to resources, may be more likely to live in low-lying areas or in less-resilient structures, and therefore are highly vulnerable to bayshore flooding.
Localized Flooding
Flooding is a concern for San Carlos residents and property owners. Localized flooding can occur during peak flow times, mainly in the industrial/commercial areas of town which are located within the 100-year flood zone. Figure 4.9-1 shows the 100- and 500-year flood zone areas in the project area, as mapped by FEMA. Areas within the 100-year flood zone have a one in 100 chance of local to general flooding every year. As of 2016, the 100-year flood zone is mapped as generally located along Pulgas Creek and Brittan Creek paralleling Brittan Avenue, in areas along El Camino Real
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 408
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-3
October 2022
south of Olive Street and in the East Side Industrial Area. Flooding is also a problem along Cordilleras Creek.
Flooding in the 100-year flood zone would not be expected to be more than a few feet deep. The greatest flood hazard would occur if a 100-year storm event coincided with an extremely high tide.
Some areas of the city also experience localized flooding during the winter months, but this does not occur on a yearly basis. Winter flooding may increase as the effects of global climate change are felt, increasing the severity and frequency of winter storms, particularly during El Niño years.
The City has identified specific flooding issues associated with Pulgas, Cordilleras, and Brittan Creeks. Some of the prior flooding problems near Pulgas Creek may have been solved by improvements at the Pulgas Creek culvert under the railroad track. Upstream erosion from Cordilleras Creek deposited at El Camino Real is a major contributor to flooding.
Dealing with erosion deposits from Cordilleras Creek is difficult since only 25 percent of the runoff originates in San Carlos (the unincorporated County generates the majority of the runoff and Redwood City also contributes a small amount). In the past, flooding associated with Brittan Creek occurred at the intersection of Greenwood and Elm Streets due to a blocked trash trap in the storm drain. The City used redevelopment funds to correct the problem, but minor flooding still occurs at scattered sites that are not connected to storm drains. Excess capacity at the Pulgas Creek culvert could possibly be used to handle stormwater diverted along El Camino Real from Brittan Creek.
Dam Inundation
A dam inundation zone is an area in which flooding could occur due to failure of an upstream dam, endangering people, and property within the zone in the instance of such a failure. Dam inundation can be caused by an earthquake or other catastrophe. There are three zones of dam inundation near San Carlos: Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir Dam Inundation Zone, Notre Dame Dam Inundation Zone and Lower Emerald Lake Dam Inundation Zone. However, there are no such zones in the City.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 409
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.9-1 FEMA Flood Zones
FEMA Flood Zones
-- 1% Annual Chance (100-year flood)
-- 0.2% Annual Chance (500-year fl ood)
Base Map Features
- - - • City of Sa n Ca rlos Boundary
Sphere of Influence
--- Major Streets
Streets
--a+--- Caltrain Ra ilroad and Stations
Surrounding Juri sdictions
Pa rks and Open Space
Waterbodies
San Carlos Airport
August2020
Sources:FEMA,2016.UnitedStatesCensusBureau,2019.NOAA,
OtyofSanCarlos,CountyofSanMateo, Urbanfootprint,2020. Edgewood Park and Natural Preserve
Palomar Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
0 ----r------------Mile 0 ¼ ½ 1
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 410
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-5
October 2022
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal legislation governing water quality and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the nation. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important and applicable sections of the Act are:
• Section 404 authorizes the United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
The USACE issues individual site-specific or general (Nationwide) permits for such discharges.
• Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. The State implements Section 303 through the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as discussed below. Section 304 requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to publish water quality criteria that accurately reflects the latest scientific knowledge on the kind of effects and extent of effects that pollutants in water may have on health and welfare. Section 304 also provides guidance to the State in adopting water quality standards.
• Section 401 requires an applicant for any Federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a discharge to “waters of the U.S.” to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the CWA. In California, a Water Quality Certification is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board and/or RWQCB. • Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S. In California, this permit program is administered by the RWQCBs, and is discussed in detail below.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.) from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating nonpoint source storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The City of San Carlos is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 411
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
US Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Flood Risk Management Program maintains a National Levee Database of federally, State, and locally constructed, operated, and maintained levees throughout the United States. The USACE Flood Risk Management Program maps levees operated and maintained by San Mateo County along the Bayshore at the San Carlos Airport. These levees ensure most of the San Carlos Airport, also owned and operated by San Mateo County, is largely but not completely located outside FEMA flood hazard zones and is protected from flood damage (see Figure 4.9-1). However, the bayshore levees do not protect other areas of the City near the Bay that are located west of the airport.
National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100- year flood.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as revised in December 2007 (California Water Code Sections 13000-14290), provides for protection of the quality of all waters of the State of California for use and enjoyment by the people of California. It further provides that all activities that may affect the quality of waters of the state shall be regulated to obtain the highest water quality that is reasonable, considering all demands being made and to be made on those waters.
The Act also establishes provisions for a statewide program for the control of water quality, recognizing that waters of the state are increasingly influenced by interbasin water development projects and other statewide considerations, and that factors such as precipitation, topography, population, recreation, agriculture, industry, and economic development vary regionally within the State. The statewide program for water quality control is, therefore, administered most effectively on a local level with statewide oversight. Within this framework, the Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs to oversee the coordination and control of water quality within California.
State Water Resources Control Board
Created by the California State Legislature in 1967, the State Water Resources Control Board holds authority over water resources allocation and water quality protection within the State. The five-member State Water Resources Control Board allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 412
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-7
October 2022
the nine RWQCBs. The mission of the State Water Resources Control Board is to, “preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations.” The proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.
Regional
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB most recently re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in May 2022 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co- permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)- based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g., rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures be properly installed, operated, and maintained.
In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development8.b January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 413
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR
October 2022
related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks.
Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they do not meet the minimum size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the Bay, or drain into hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030. Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition. As of July 1, 2019, buildings constructed between 1955 and 1978 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) is the local agency responsible for the oversight of implementation of the applicable provisions, including Provision C.3, of the MRP by local jurisdictions within San Mateo County.
Dam Safety
Dam failure is the uncontrolled release of impounded water behind a dam. Flooding, earthquakes, blockages, landslides, lack of maintenance, improper operation, poor construction, vandalism, and terrorism can all cause a dam to fail. Because dam failure that results in downstream flooding may affect life and property, dam safety is regulated at both the federal and state level. Dams under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams are identified in California Water Code Sections 6002, 6003, and 6004 and regulations for dams and reservoirs are included in the California Code of Regulations. In accordance with the state’s Dam Safety Act, dams are inspected regularly and detailed evacuation procedures have been prepared for each dam. According to maps published by San Mateo County, there are no dam failure inundation areas within the City of San Carlos.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 414
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-9
October 2022
Local
San Carlos General Plan
The Environmental Management and Community Services and Community Safety and Service Elements in the City’s General Plan contains the following hydrology and water quality goals, policies and actions relevant to the proposed project:
Goal EM-5: Assure a high level of domestic water quality, promote water conservation and reduce toxics in run-off, including stormwater and the sanitary sewer system.
Policy EM-5.1: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the city’s sanitary sewer and stormwater collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Policy EM-5.2: Promote the use of less toxic household and commercial cleaning materials.
Policy EM-5.7: Encourage site designs that manage the quantity and quality of storm water run-off.
Policy EM-5.10: Require the evaluation of potential groundwater depletion that could occur from new development through dewatering.
Action EM-5.1: Evaluate amending the Zoning Code to maximize permeable surfaces or other water catchment methods for new development as applicable.
Action EM-5.2: Utilize bioswales and other bio-filtration systems as applicable to cleanse runoff before it enters creeks and the San Francisco Bay.
Action EM-5.4: Implement Climate Action Plan measures to provide for water-efficient landscaping.
Action EM-5.10: Implement the NPDES Stormwater Permit and for those properties exempt from the Permit, require a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including use of best management practices, to control erosion and sedimentation during construction.
Goal CSS-2: Reduce hazards associated with flooding or inundation.
Policy CSS-2.4: Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.
Policy CSS-2.12: Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff, so as to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 415
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
San Carlos Municipal Code
Three chapters of the San Carlos Municipal Code contain regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality issues relevant to the proposed project, as described below.
Chapter 12.08 – Grading and Excavations. The purpose of this chapter is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life and limb, to protect property and property values, preserve natural beauty, promote public welfare, protect and enhance water quality of watercourses, water bodies and wetlands, and control erosion, sedimentation, and increases in surface runoff and related environmental damage caused by construction-related activities. This chapter requires projects which grade fifty or more cubic yards of material to obtain a grading permit, which includes the preparation of soils report and an erosion and sediment control plan, among other requirements.
Chapter 13.14 – Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. This Chapter, known as the "City of San Carlos Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance", contains provisions for eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the City’s storm drain system; controlling the discharge of spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than stormwater; and reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. These provisions meet the requirements of the CWA and Municipal Regional NPDES permit. The City has the authority to inspect properties to ensure that the provisions of this title are implemented, as per Section
13.14.130.
Chapter 18.18 – Landscaping. Section 18.18.080 Water efficient landscaping and irrigation of this chapter requires that landscaping be designed and plantings selected so that water use is minimized. The estimated total water use (ETWU) of the proposed landscaping on a site must not exceed the maximum applied water allowance (MAWA).
Chapter 15.56 – Floodplain Management. This Chapter sets forth construction requirements for development that would minimize flood hazard risks, including anchoring, elevation, and floodproofing, and standards for utilities, subdivisions, residential, and non-residential construction.
Non-residential structures can either be elevated above the base flood elevation or be floodproofed below the base flood level. Compliance with Section 15.56.120 requires a development permit approval from the Floodplain Administrator for the City of San Carlos (i.e., the Building Official) that provides plans drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in question; the location and elevation of existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of material, and drainage facilities; and floodproofing provisions.
4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality;
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 416
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-11 October 2022
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin;
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows;
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential impacts related to hydrology and Water Quality which could result from the implementation of the Focused General Plan Update and recommends mitigation measures as needed to reduce significant impacts. Unless otherwise noted, impact discussions apply to both the Housing Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element aspects of the project.
Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Water quality in the project area and surrounding jurisdictions is regulated by a number of federal, state, and county laws and regulations.
Runoff from the Project Area eventually discharges to San Francisco Bay via a network of creek channels and sloughs (receiving waters) as described above. The City’s storm drain system collects stormwater runoff from streets, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces and discharges it directly into these receiving waters without any treatment for removal of contaminants. San Francisco Bay has impaired water quality due to pollutants, including trash, metals (copper, lead, zinc) oil and
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 417
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
grease that are carried by stormwater runoff. Metals, oil and grease are common stormwater runoff pollutants associated with roads and parking lots. Other sources of these pollutants include building materials (such as galvanized steel) that are other impervious surfaces in developed areas that are exposed to rain. Erosion and sedimentation from construction sites also contributes to stormwater runoff pollution.
In addition to the City of San Carlos’ grading and building permit requirements, new development that would result from the proposed project would be subject to the applicable provisions of the MRP, primarily Provision C.3 which requires the implementation of proper site design, pollutant source controls and on-site LID-based runoff treatment controls in new development projects. As a co-permittee of the MRP, the City of San Carlos would be responsible for the review, approval and implementation of these measures, as well as with the implementation of the applicable requirements of statewide regulations such as the Construction General Permit during the construction phases of new development. As a result of the implementation of state, regional and local stormwater regulations being implemented by the City of San Carlos, impacts of the project on surface water quality would be less than significant.
Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less Than Significant Impact) There are nine groundwater basins with boundaries –either partial or whole—within San Mateo County. The low-lying (non-hillside) portions of the City of San Carlos are located within the approximately 60,000-acre San Mateo Plain groundwater subbasin.1 The San Mateo Plain Subbasin underlies the bayside of San Mateo County from approximately the City of San Mateo on the north, to approximately the County boundary at San Francisquito Creek on the south.
Currently, there is no entity actively managing the basin.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in water demand compared to existing conditions. However, groundwater is not used for municipal supply in San Carlos. The Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) would provide potable water for new development in the City. MPWD does not use groundwater supplies to meet demand. Since the proposed project would not develop or increase the use of groundwater supplies, implementation of the project would not impact groundwater supplies. Further, new or redevelopment projects would include the installation of LID-based runoff treatment controls in conformance with the MRP, which would also increase the amount of pervious area on these sites and allow for greater groundwater recharge at the sites compared to existing conditions.
Groundwater depletion could occur from new development through dewatering particularly during subterranean construction activities. The implementation of Policy EM-5.10 and the related 1 San Mateo County Office of Sustainability. Groundwater. Accessed at:
https://www.smcsustainability.org/water/groundwater/ on August 2, 2022.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 418
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-13 October 2022
Actions (Actions 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 & 5.10, described above) would reduce potential groundwater depletion impacts resulting from new development through dewatering to a less than significant level.
Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains the following goals, policies, and actions that would reduce potential flooding impacts.
Goal ESPS-2: Reduce hazards associated with flooding and inundation.
Policy ESPS-2.1: Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.
Policy ESPS-2.2: Maintain and prioritize restoration of a healthy riparian corridor in Citymaintained flood control channels such as Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage, and heavy undergrowth; and increase community access to channels with improved stormwater and flood management strategies.
Policy ESPS-2.3: Maintain a strong and enforceable Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance for all city creeks and their tributaries.
Policy ESPS -2.4: Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.
Policy ESPS -2.5: Evaluate flood hazards on a watershed level, taking into account all sources of water and the eventual end point of each source.
Policy ESPS -2.6: Promote City staff knowledge and training on the relationship between watershed health and flood hazards.
Policy ESPS -2.7: Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on approaches to flooding and creek maintenance.
Policy ESPS -2.8: Continue to work with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies (such as FEMA, San Mateo County OneShoreline Program, City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) of San Mateo County, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to: (1) maintain the most current flood hazard and
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 419
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
floodplain information and use it as a basis for project review; and (2) create public-private partnerships to guide development in accordance with federal, State, and local standards.
Policy ESPS -2.10: Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.
Policy ESPS -2.11: Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. To this end, the City shall ensure that its regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Action ESPS -2.1: Consider participating in a regional Watershed Management Plan to perform technical analysis to understand geotechnical, biological, and hydraulic conditions to model the hydrography of the city and identify options to reduce flooding risk and where opportunities exist to restore creeks within the watershed to a more naturalized condition.
Options could include detaining or retaining stormwater runoff in upper portions of the watershed, adding capacity in the lower portions of the watershed and maintaining existing creek and channel capacity through improved maintenance. The Watershed Management Plan would seek to balance the two primary functions of creeks: flood control and riparian habitat.
Action ESPS-2.2: Amend the Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance to: (1) include all creeks and tributaries, including Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek, to strengthen the effectiveness of existing policies and to create vital and accessible community open space with improved stormwater and flood management strategies; (2) increase the required setbacks and landscaping provisions from the existing creek top to improve stormwater detention capacity and to help address flooding issues and creek restoration; (3) prohibit general vehicle access along the creek within the Stream Development Ordinance overlay district.
Action ESPS -2.6: Seek to have property owners downstream of city limit maintain drainage channels in a responsible manner to avoid flooding.
Action ESPS -2.7: Initiate flood insurance rate map revisions for City projects.
Due to the developed nature of the project area and the MRP requirements for future development projects to implement LID-based site design and stormwater treatment controls, future new and redevelopment of the project area would not generate substantial off-site flooding during storm events. Compliance with the construction best management practices requirements of the Construction General Plan would also reduce impacts related to erosion and sedimentation on construction sites as well as on receiving waters off-site. Future projects located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) would additionally be subject to FEMA restrictions and applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan. As previously stated, Chapter 15.56 of the Code (Floodplain Management). establishes construction requirements for development that would minimize flood hazard risks, including anchoring, elevation, and flood-proofing, and standards for utilities, subdivisions, residential, and non-residential construction. Existing
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 420
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.9-15 October 2022
Environmental Management Element Action EM-5.10 requires implementation of the NPDES permit or preparation of a stormwater prevention plan and proposed ESPS Element Policies ESPS2.4 and ESPS-2.10 (see Chapter 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials) increase flood protection through reductions in impervious surface area and by requiring new development projects to incorporate storm drain systems that control runoff rates and volumes thereby preventing increases in downstream flooding potential.
Through implementation of the required measures of the MRP, Construction General Permit, FEMA, San Carlos Municipal Code and existing and proposed General Plan policies and actions, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantial increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, generation of stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
Impact HYD-4: The project area includes areas that are subject to flooding during the 100- year and 500-year storm events, however the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation would be reduced through implementation of Municipal Code and MRP requirements. (Less Than Significant Impact)
As previously stated, the project area includes areas subject to inundation by the 100-year and 500- year floods (refer to Figure 4.9-1).
A tsunami is a large tidal wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption.
Tsunami inundation maps have been developed that show tsunami hazard zones for the San Francisco Bay area. There are no tsunami hazard zones within the City of San Carlos; therefore, it would not be subject to flooding from a tsunami (California Department of Conservation, 2021).
Seiches are waves that oscillate in enclosed water bodies, such as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, swimming pools, or semi-enclosed bodies of water, such as San Francisco Bay. The project site is
0.5 miles west of the San Francisco Bay; however, as it is not within the tsunami hazard zone for the Bay, the site is not expected to be inundated by a seiche (California Department of Conservation, 2021).
Although the certain areas of the City are at risk of inundation from flooding during storm events, the risk of flooding would be reduced through compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter
15.56 (Flood Damage Prevention). Section 15.56.080 requires a development permit to be obtained before construction begins in a SFHA. City building permits serve as the vehicles for permitting development in the floodplain. Municipal Code Section 15.56.120 sets forth construction requirements for development that would minimize flood hazard risks.
Compliance with Chapter 15.56 of the Municipal Code would identify measures to help prepare future development sites in the event of a flood and would help reduce the potential for pollutants
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 421
Chapter 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
at known contamination sites within SFHAs from being released into the environment in the event of a flood. (see Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials for additional analysis) In addition to Municipal Code requirements, to comply with C.3 provisions of the MRP, post construction BMPs are required to protect water quality at the site. Project applicants would be required to prepare Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plans which detail stormwater pollutant source controls to be incorporated into the projects. The risk of pollutant release due to new project inundation is expected to be low based on the requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code and Provision C.3. This impact would be less than significant.
Impact HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project, which would allow increases in the number of housing units to be built in the City, would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. Conformance with regulatory requirements for surface water quality protection and reducing flooding risks, as described above, would be required of all new or redevelopment projects in the City, resulting in less than significant impacts. As discussed, the project would not impact existing groundwater.
4.9.5 References
California Department of Conservation. San Mateo County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Accessed on August 3, 2022. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/SHP/Tsunami/HazardArea/Maps/Tsunami_ Hazard_Area_Map_San_Mateo_County_a11y.pdf
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater PDES Permit. Revised Tentative Order No. R2-2022-XXXX NPDES Permit No.
CAS612008. May 11, 2022
City of San Carlos. 2009. San Carlos 2030 General Plan. Adopted October 12, 2009.
City of San Carlos. 2021. San Carlos Municipal Code. Accessed December 27, 2021. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/
County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department. San Mateo County Hazards/Dam Failure| Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed January 13, 2022. Available at:
https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.scgov.org/files/documents/files/Dam_Failure_Inu ndation.pdf
FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Accessed August 3, 2022. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=405%20industrial%20road%2C%20san% 20carlos%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 422
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-1 October 2022
4.10 LAND USE
This EIR section addresses the project’s potential impacts on land use and planning and suggests mitigation measures, if required.
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Project Area
The San Carlos project area consists of 10,348 parcels encompassing 3,570 acres. The project area includes the City’s 2,805 acres and the 765 sphere of influence (SOI) acres. The SOI includes three areas of unincorporated San Mateo County: the Devonshire Area, which includes Devonshire Canyon and a nearby 17-acre area adjacent to Club Drive, Cranfield Avenue, and the City of Belmont; Palomar Park; and Pulgas Ridge (formally known as the Hassler Area).
Existing Land Use
Residential uses are the predominant land use in San Carlos, and account for more than half of the total land area. Mixed-use land uses total eight acres, less than one percent of city land uses.
Commercial and light industrial land uses comprise 14 percent and public facilities and institutions makes up nine percent. Park and open space uses encompass approximately 307 acres or 19 percent of city land uses. Parking uses total 20 acres or less than one percent, while vacant land makes up three percent of the project area. A summary of land uses within the City is provided in Table
4.10-1. A map showing existing land uses is included as Figure 2-3, and the existing General Plan Land Use Map is Figure 2-4, both included in the Project Description Chapter.
Table 4.10-1: Existing Land Uses
San Carlos (City)
Sphere of Influence
(SOI) Project Area Total
Acres
Percent of
City Land
Use Acres
Percent of
SOI Land
Use Acres
Percent of All
Land Use
Residential 1,717.8 61.2% 252.5 33.0% 1,970.3 55.2%
Single-Family 1,553.2 55.4% 249.4 32.6% 1,802.6 50.5%
Multi-Family 164.6 5.9% 3.1 0.4% 167.7 4.7%
Mixed-Use 8.0 0.3% - - 8.0 0.2%
Commercial 212.3 7.6% 13.8 1.8% 226.1 6.3%
Retail 95.5 3.4% 13.8 1.8% 109.3 3.1%
Office/Commercial 116.8 4.2% - - 116.8 3.3%
Industrial 261.5 9.3% - - 261.5 7.3%
Industrial 162.8 5.8% - - 162.8 4.6%
Warehousing 98.7 3.5% - - 98.7 2.8%
Public Facilities and
Institutions 251.2 9.0% 59.4 7.8% 310.6 8.7%
Civic 2.9 0.1% 20.9 2.7% 23.8 0.7%
Institutional 12.2 0.4% - - 12.2 0.3%
Schools/Education
Facilities 66.7 2.4% 15.4 2.0% 82.1 2.3%
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 423
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.10-1: Existing Land Uses
San Carlos (City)
Sphere of Influence
(SOI) Project Area Total
Acres
Percent of
City Land
Use Acres
Percent of
SOI Land
Use Acres
Percent of All
Land Use
Transportation/Utilities 169.3 6.0% 23.1 3.0% 192.5 5.4% Parks and Open Space 306.7 10.9% 360.8 47.1% 667.5 18.7% Parks/Recreation 164.6 5.9% 357.4 46.7% 522.0 14.6%
Open Space/Natural
Resources 142.0 5.1% 3.4 0.4% 145.4 4.1%
Agriculture 0.1 0.004% - - 0.1 0.003%
Parking 19.9 0.7% 0.5 0.1% 20.4 0.6%
Vacant 27.9 1.0% 77.8 10.2% 105.7 3.0%
Total 2,805.3 100% 764.7 100% 3,570.01 100%
Source: Existing Conditions Atlas, San Carlos 2040.
Residential Uses. Residential uses, which are the largest land use category, account for 55 percent of the project area. Residential uses are comprised of single-family, multi-family, and mixed use categories. Single-family use is generally considered one house per lot. Single-family residential use is over 50 percent of the entire project area and is located throughout San Carlos, including east of El Camino. Multi-family use is generally considered more than one housing unit on a lot.
Multi-family use can include stacked flats and townhomes. Like single-family use, multi-family uses are found throughout the project area. Mixed-use combines residential use either vertically or horizontally with a non-residential use, typically a commercial use. Mixed-use primarily occurs along El Camino Real. Over 90 percent of all residential land use is single-family land use.
Low residential density (defined as up to twenty units per net acre, in accordance with the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance) and medium residential density (up to 59 units per net acre) uses are concentrated in the east-central portion of San Carlos between San Carlos Avenue, Cherry Street, and Laurel Street west of El Camino Real and US-101. Of the single-family residential zoning districts, the most predominant is the RS-6 Single Family Zoning District, located throughout San Carlos and west of US 101.
Medium density residential development allows for densities of up to 59 units per acre and accommodates stacked flats, townhomes, and rowhouses developed at a scale and form appropriate to neighborhood context and adjacent single-family residential uses. Medium density residential development is concentrated in the Downtown area, Laurel Street and the El Camino Real corridor.
Medium density housing is also found along the southern edge of the Devonshire area and along San Carlos’ western boundary.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are another residential form found in San Carlos. San Carlos allows ADUs to be established on any lot in any zoning district where a primary single-unit dwelling has been previously established or is proposed to be established in conjunction with construction of a second unit.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 424
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-3 October 2022
Mixed-Use Districts. Mixed-use development combines two or more types of land use into a building or set of buildings that are physically and functionally integrated and mutually supporting.
This can be a combination of residential, commercial, office, institutional, or other land uses.
Mixed-use development accommodating 50 or more units per acre occurs along the eastern portion of El Camino Real corridor east of San Carlos Avenue, with the highest allowed density occurring in the Mixed Use – San Carlos Avenue zoning district. Mixed-use districts account for less than one percent of the total land use in San Carlos.
Other Land Uses. Other land uses include light and heavy industrial, general commercial, landmark commercial, neighborhood retail, airport, planned development, parks, and open space.
Commercial development covers six percent of the project area. Office commercial uses containing business, professional, and medical services make up three percent, while industrial uses make up seven percent of total land area. Industrial uses include large manufacturing businesses, biotechnical and biomedical firms, and light and heavy industrial uses. Industrial uses are predominately located east of US 101 and between US 101 and El Camino Real. San Carlos Airport is located at the City’s eastern edge on land owned by San Mateo County.
Vacant Land Uses. Little vacant land exists within San Carlos (approximately three percent of the project area). Vacant land is defined as having no building structures constructed on the land.
Vacant land does not include parks or open space, which is “vacant” or open by design. Vacant land can occur in each of the General Plan and zoning designated areas.
Airport Land Use Planning
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Board of Directors serves as the airport land use commission for San Mateo County. The Airport Land Use Commission reviews proposals for general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and land use development proposals in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport to ensure that future land uses in the surrounding area remain compatible with the realistically foreseeable, ultimate potential aircraft activity. The Commission adopted the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Carlos Airport in 2015. The Land Use Compatibility Plan sets forth land use compatibility criteria, compatibility zones, development standards, and policies pertaining to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight standards, and establishes the planning boundaries that define height, tall structures, noise, and safety zones for policy implementation.
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Government Code Sections 65580-65589 Housing Elements Unlike most other General Plan elements, the Housing Element requires periodic updating and is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by the State of California
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 425
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). According to State law, the Housing Element must:
• Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve, improve, and develop housing.
• Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community.
• Identify adequate sites that are/will be zoned and available for housing during the Housing Element planning period — between 2023 and 2031 — to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs at all income levels.
• Undergo HCD review of the Draft Housing Element and certification of the City’s adopted Housing Element in compliance with state law.
State law establishes detailed content requirements for Housing Elements and establishes a regional “fair share” approach to distributing housing throughout all communities in the Bay Area, inclusive to people of all incomes. The law recognizes that in order for the private sector and nonprofit housing sponsors to address housing demand and build housing, local governments must adopt land use plans and zoning regulations that provide opportunities for—and do not unduly constrain—housing development.
The Housing Element must provide clear policies and direction for making decisions related to zoning, subdivision approval, and capital improvements (transportation infrastructure, sewer, water, storm drainage, gas, electricity, etc.) that relate to housing needs.
California Government Code Section 65302 and Other Pertinent State Laws Relating to General Plans. California Government Code Section 65302(g)(1) establishes the legislative framework for California's Safety Elements. This framework consolidates the requirements from relevant federal and state agencies, ensuring that all jurisdictions are compliant with the numerous statutory mandates. These mandates include:
• Protecting against significant risks related to earthquakes, tsunamis, seiches, dam failure, landslides, subsidence, flooding, and fires as applicable. • Including maps of known seismic and other geologic hazards. • Addressing evacuation routes, military installations, peak-load water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures as related to fire and geologic hazards, where applicable.
• Identifying areas subject to flooding, sea level rise, and wildfires. • Avoiding locating critical facilities within areas of high risk. • Assessing the community's vulnerability to climate change and including adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and implementation actions.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 426
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-5 October 2022
Regional
Association of Bay Area Governments - Regional Housing Needs Allocation Since 1969, the State of California has required each local government to plan for its share of the state’s housing needs for people of all income levels. Through the RHNA process, every local jurisdiction is assigned a number of housing units representing its share of the state’s housing needs for an eight year period. State Housing Element Law requires the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to develop a methodology for distributing the Bay Area’s portion of the state housing needs to local governments within the nine county region.
ABAG adopted its final 2023-2031 RHNA plan for the Bay Area on December 16, 2021 and the HCD approved the plan on January 12, 2022. The region’s nine counties and 101 cities are collectively responsible for developing 441,176 new housing units during the 2023-2031 period.
The City of San Carlos’s allocation is for 2,735 housing units during the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four key elements — housing, the economy, transportation and the environment — and identifies a path to make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. The population in the region is expected to grow from around 7.8 million residents today to over 10 million residents by 2050. The region is forecast to add 1.4 million new jobs, for a total of 5.4 million Bay Area workers. Plan Bay Area 2050 states that the Bay Area will need to build 1.36 million new homes by 2050 to meet this forecasted future demand.
Plan Bay Area 2050’s core strategy is “focused growth” in existing communities along the existing transportation network. This strategy is intended to leverage existing infrastructure and minimize impacts to less developed areas. The focused growth strategy targets four types of Growth Geographies:
• Priority Development Areas (PDAs): Areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities or counties) for housing and job growth.
• Priority Production Areas (PPAs): Locally identified places for job growth in middlewage industries like manufacturing, logistics or other trades. An area must be zoned for industrial use or have a predominantly industrial use to be a PPA. • Transit-Rich Areas (TRAs): Areas near rail, ferry or frequent bus service that were not already identified as PDAs. Specifically, these are areas where at least 50 percent of the area is within 1/2 mile of either an existing rail station or ferry terminal (with bus or rail service), a bus stop with peak service frequency of 15 minutes or less, or a planned rail station or planned ferry terminal (with bus or rail service).
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 427
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
• High-Resource Areas (HRAs): State-identified places with well-resourced schools and access to jobs and open space, among other advantages, that may have historically rejected more housing growth. This designation only includes places that meet a baseline transit service threshold of bus service with peak headways of 30 minutes or better.
Local
San Carlos General Plan
The 2009 General Plan provides the fundamental basis for the City’s land use and development policy, and represents the basic community values, ideals and aspirations to govern a shared environment over the life of the General Plan, which is to the year 2030. The General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use; Housing; Circulation and Scenic Highways; Environmental Management; Parks and Recreation; Community Safety and Services; and Noise.
All development in the city must conform to the land use designations outlined in the General Plan. Goals, policies and actions and implementation measures contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan provide guidance on how land use designations should be developed. Under State law, the City’s General Plan is the primary planning document and all other City plans and policies must be consistent with the adopted General Plan.
The General Plan includes the following applicable policies:
Policy LU-1.2: Encourage development of higher density housing and support additional job growth within the TOD corridor while being sensitive to surrounding uses.
Policy LU-1.5: Support land use patterns in the TOD corridor that will attract and serve riders of public transit.
Policy LU-1.7: Encourage mitigation of parking conflicts between different land uses.
Policy LU-1.11: Preserve existing open space by supporting urban infill.
Policy LU-2.6: Support active ground floor uses such as retail, restaurants and services and, on Laurel Street between Holly Street and Eaton Avenue, limit residential uses to upper floors.
Policy LU-2.7: Encourage residential and other uses in the Downtown Laurel Street area that contribute to the Downtown’s vibrancy and activity.
Policy LU-2.9: Continue to allow shared parking between commercial and residential uses.
Policy LU-3.9: Promote development opportunities for regular physical activity by locating residential developments near services.
Policy LU-5.6: Strive for a balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 428
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-7 October 2022
Policy LU-8.19: Residential structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, avoid obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, avoid interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the community design principles.
Policy LU-8.20: Require all new residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial projects subject to design review by the appropriate decision making body for compliance with site planning, architecture, signing and landscaping criteria prior to approval.
Policy LU-9.1: Maintain and enhance neighborhoods to be safe and attractive.
Policy LU-9.2: Support resident-driven neighborhood efforts that strengthen identity and protect and/or enhance neighborhood character and complement the principles, goals, policies and actions of the General Plan.
Policy LU-9.3: Assure that redevelopment, public or private, mitigates any negative traffic and parking impacts on or adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-9.4: Mitigation measures shall be utilized to the greatest extent feasible for neighborhoods surrounding new proposed development.
Policy LU-9.5: Require buffering, screening, setbacks, or other measures for new and expanded multi-family residential and/or commercial/industrial developments adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts.
Policy LU-9.11: Require and monitor adequate parking and/or parking alternatives for new schools, parks and other public uses within residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-9.12: Ensure that development in residential areas is compatible with neighborhood character.
Policy LU-9.13: Require appropriate transitions of building scale, massing and height to adjacent single-family homes.
Policy LU-9.14: Legally nonconforming multi-family residential structures located within multi-family residential zoning districts may be replaced, restored, rebuilt, or repaired and used consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the structure was originally constructed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission.
Policy LU-9.20: Conversion of existing rental housing stock to condominiums shall be permitted only when it can be shown that:
• The vacancy rate in rental units in the city is in excess of 5 percent. • Adequate provisions are made for the protection of tenants including relocation assistance.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 429
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Policy CSH-3.4: Support Smart Growth and Sustainability principles to reduce travel time from housing to jobs, provide affordable transportation to all members of the community, allow compact mixed-use development and decrease dependency on automobiles.
Policy CSS-1.2: Prohibit structural development in known areas where seismic and geological hazards cannot be mitigated.
Policy CSS-1.3: Continue to monitor and enforce mitigation measures to reduce risk for projects where geological and seismic hazards can be mitigated.
Policy CSS-1.5: Continue to incorporate seismic risk analysis into the City's ongoing building inspection program through thorough review of projects by plan check and field inspections.
Policy CSS-1.6: Continue to encourage retrofitting of structures, particularly older buildings, to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides, consistent with state Building Codes and Historic Building Codes.
Policy CSS-1.7: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision- making, site design and construction standards.
Policy CSS-3.1: Evaluate fire response needs of the Fire Department as new development and redevelopment continues within city limit.
Policy CSS-3.6: Continue to enforce building code regulations that minimize fire hazards in areas subject to a very high fire severity zone (VHFSZ) risk west of Alameda de las Pulgas and prohibit any structural development in areas where wildland urban fire hazards cannot be mitigated under an agreement addressing alternate means of protection and materials agreement.
Policy CSS-3.9: Support “early review” of proposed development by the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department and institute impact fees to ensure adequate all-risk fire equipment for the community.
Policy CSS-3.10: Continue to require all new development to provide all necessary water service, fire hydrants and road improvements consistent with City standards and the California Fire Code.
Policy CSS-3.11: Ensure that in existing developed areas within the city there is an acceptable level of fire safety and emergency medical/paramedic services.
Policy CSS-4.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria and standards enforcement.
Policy CSS-4.4: Mitigate indoor air intrusion potential in areas of new development or redevelopment where the property is located above known volatile compound plumes.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 430
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-9 October 2022
Policy CSS-4.5: Where deemed necessary, based on the history of land use, require site assessment for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior to approving development project applications.
Policy CSS-7.2: Establish and regularly monitor levels of service of San Carlos’ public facilities and services.
Policy CSS-7.8: Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate services are available, or when a program to provide services has been approved by the applicable district and the City.
Policy CSS-7.9: Ensure that adequate public services and facilities are planned and constructed to accommodate the population of the city.
Policy CSS-8.4: Evaluate through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process how new development impacts schools, as the quality of San Carlos schools is a primary asset of the city.
Policy NOI-1.5: New development of noise-sensitive land uses proposed in noise-impacted areas shall incorporate effective mitigation measures into the project design to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
a. For new single-family residential development, maintain a standard of 60 Ldn (day/night average noise level) for exterior noise in private use areas. b. For new multi-family residential development maintain a standard of 65 Ldn in community outdoor recreation areas. Noise standards are not applied to private decks and balconies and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis in the downtown core. c. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 Ldn in all new residential units (single- and multi-family). Development sites exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 Ldn shall be analyzed following protocols in Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208, A, Sound Transmission Control, 2001 Building Code Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2 of the 2007 California Building Code (or the latest revision). d. Where new residential units (single and multi-family) would be exposed to intermittent noise levels generated during train operations, maximum railroad noise levels inside homes shall not exceed 50 dBA in bedrooms or 55 dBA in other occupied spaces. These single event limits are only applicable where there are normally four or more train operations per day.
Policy NOI-1.6: Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the noise level standards, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design.
The use of noise barriers shall be considered after practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 431
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
San Carlos Municipal Code
The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the San Carlos Municipal Code regulate land use in the city. San Carlos’ Zoning Ordinance is contained in Title 18 of the Municipal Code. The Zoning Ordinance is the mechanism used to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and to regulate all land use within the city. The Subdivision Ordinance, contained in Title 17 of the Municipal Code, implements the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California by regulating the design and improvement of subdivisions in San Carlos.
4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance
The project would result in a significant land use impact if it would:
a. Physically divide an established community; or
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section analyzes potential land use impacts that would result from implementation of the project. It begins with the criteria of significance which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section describes potential impacts associated with the project and identifies mitigation measures to address these impacts, as needed.
It should be noted that policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute a significant environmental impact unless it is a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and the inconsistency would result in a significant adverse physical impact.
Please note that planning documents that pertain to specific technical topics (e.g., Noise) are discussed in those topical sections of this Draft EIR.
Impact LAND-1: The project would not physically divide an established community. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Housing Element Update
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a new freeway, railway, or other large transportation projects, or propose land development in a manner that would substantially alter existing movement patterns.) or the removal of a means of access (such as a bridge) that would impede or restrict movements within a community. It also may refer to policies that limit or preclude access between adjacent areas or neighborhoods within a city. The proposed Focused GPU does not propose major circulation
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 432
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-11 October 2022
changes or changes in land development that would restrict access to any particular areas of the City.
Implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the construction of additional residential units but no major infrastructure or circulation changes are proposed as part of this project. The project would have a less than significant.
Environmental Safety and Community Services Element Update The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains goals, policies, and actions to reduce the risks associated with environmental hazards. The proposed goals, policies, and programs focus on building the resilience of the community and the built environment against hazards, including geologic and seismic hazards, flooding, wildfire, poor air quality and climate change effects, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards from the San Carlos Airport. No major infrastructure or circulation changes which would physically divide an established community are proposed as part of the Environmental Safety and Community Services Element Update. The potential impact would be considered less than significant.
Impact LAND-2: The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less Than Significant Impact) This section includes a discussion of potential conflicts between the project and applicable planning documents. It should be noted that policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute a significant environmental impact. However, policy inconsistency is considered to be a significant adverse environmental impact when it is related to a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and it is anticipated that the inconsistency would result in a significant adverse physical impact. Please note that planning documents that pertain to specific technical topics (e.g., Air Quality) are discussed in those topical sections of this Draft EIR.
General Plan Updates
The Housing Element Update and the Environmental Safety and Community Services Element Update would be adopted as part of the General Plan. The updated elements would comply with State Planning Law requirements for these general plan elements, and the proposed housing sites identified within the Housing Element Update would allow the City to meet its RHNA allocation as identified by ABAG.
The project also includes updates to the General Plan Land Use, Environmental Management, Noise, and Circulation and Scenic Highway elements for internal consistency with the Housing Element and Environmental Safety and Community Services Updates. Additionally, the General Plan Land Use Map will also be updated to reflect the changes in zoning required to support the Housing Element and the Zoning map will be amended. The new General Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations are presented in Figures 3-7 and 3-8 in Chapter 3 Project Description.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 433
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Environmental Safety and Community Services Element Update The Environmental Safety and Community Services Element contains goals, policies, and actions intended to protect the public and infrastructure from environmental hazards. Many of the policies would have either direct or indirect impacts on existing and future land uses in terms of protecting uses and structures from environmental hazards and incorporating climate resiliency planning, including for wildfire and sea level rise into the City’s planning processes. The Environmental Safety and Community Services Element has been prepared consistent with other General Plan elements, as well as state and regional requirements including CAL FIRE requirements for wildfire planning in Safety Elements, the San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and San Mateo County One shoreline’s approach to sea level rise.
Land Use Element Update
The following are the proposed changes to the current General Plan Land Use Element policies and actions text (proposed new text is shown in underline while deleted text is shown with strikethrough):
• Policy LU-1.6 Consider reduced parking requirements for multi-family residential and mixed-use projects within the TOD corridor. Reduced parking requirements may be permitted only if a parking study is submitted demonstrating that the reduced parking is adequate to accommodate on-site parking demand associated with the project. • Action LU-1.8 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to address the new multiple family and mixed use designations.
• Policy LU-8.2 Ensure that new development is sensitive sensitively transitions to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood. • Policy LU-8.7 Encourage Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings. • Policy LU-8.19 Residential and mixed use structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, avoid minimize obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, avoid minimize interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the community design principles. • Policy LU-8.20 Require all new residential multi-family residential, commercial and industrial projects subject to design review by the appropriate decision- making body for compliance with site planning, architecture, signing and landscaping criteria prior to approval, as permitted by State law.
• Action LU-8.54 Develop objective design standards consistent with State law and amend Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Planning Department application submittal checklist to require information and materials that accurately and sufficiently demonstrate a project’s compliance with architectural façade and design policies new objective design standards.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 434
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-13 October 2022
• Policy LU-9.5 Require buffering, screening, transitional standards, or other measures for new and expanded multi-family residential, mixed use, and/or commercial/industrial developments adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts. • Policy LU-9.10 In the event of closure of a school, the primary planned use of these sites remains for school and associated recreation purposes, or housing. The school site should be considered for acquisition by the City.
• Policy LU-9.14 Legally nonconforming multi-family residential structures located within multi-family residential zoning districts may be replaced, restored, rebuilt, or repaired and used consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the structure was originally constructed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission.at the time of the replacement, restoring, rebuilding, or repairing. • Action LU-9.2 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include objective design standards, transitional design standards for multi-family residential buildings and commercial uses adjacent to single-family homes, as appropriate.
• Policy LU-10.6 Require all new development and significantly modified development in the High and Very High Fire Susceptibility Zones to install and maintain fire prevention design and materials in accordance with Building Codes at the time of the construction/reconstruction.
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Update
The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element is updated to ensure consistency with the Housing and the Environmental Safety and Public Services Elements. Two policies are updated as follows (edits shown in underline text):
• Policy CSH-1.1. Widths of streets and highways should be sufficient to address existing and projected traffic volumes, emergency access requirements, while providing positive pedestrian and bicycle experiences.
• Policy CSH-3.5. Street and right-of-way widths should be designed and constructed in accordance with the street standards established in this plan, the City Subdivision Ordinance and Standard Details. However, flexibility for street widths should be permitted with sensitivity to slope, neighborhood character, traffic volume, emergency access requirements, and pedestrian/bicycle needs.
Environmental Management Element Update
One action is updated to ensure consistency with the Housing and the Environmental Safety and Public Services Elements.
• Action EM-11.3. Design streets to accommodate all modes of transportation, including emergency vehicles, and provide for a safe and attractive pedestrian experience.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 435
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Noise Element Update
One policy is updated to ensure consistency with the Housing and the Environmental Safety and Public Services Elements.
• Policy NOI-1.5B. For new multi-family residential development maintain a standard of 65 Ldn in community outdoor recreation areas. Noise standards are not applied to private decks and balconies and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis in the downtown core.
Conclusion
Future housing development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and all new development would be required to be consistent with the Environmental Safety and Community Services Element, including policies and programs adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing adverse physical effects on the environment, including the revised policies listed above. This also applies to the revised policies listed for the Environmental Management and Noise elements. Future housing projects would be reviewed for adherence to the General Plan and the applicable zoning regulations. The General Plan contains many policies, some of which may compete with each other. The Planning Commission and City Council, in deciding whether to approve a proposed project, will decide whether, on balance, a project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the General Plan.
Title 18 Municipal Code (Zoning) Amendments
Amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code) would be initiated to allow for fulfilment of the City’s RHNA by increasing the residential density within certain zoning designations, as well as by creating new zoning designations. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are anticipated to include single-family residential (e.g., in response to SB-9), multi-family residential and mixed-use categories, which would provide for development of some lower-level commercial/retail, and office. New zoning designations would include MultiFamily and Mixed-Use designations that would allow up to 120 dwelling units per acre. The new, higher density residential and mixed-use zoning designations would occur primarily along the El Camino Real corridor, San Carlos Avenue corridor, and in the Downtown area west of El Camino Real.
In addition to the proposed density increases, the City proposes to revise required Development Standards for residential and mixed-use zoning districts such as setbacks, FAR, parking, landscaping, private open space, and other development related requirements. The Land Use and Zoning Maps will also be updated to reflect these changes (see Figures 3-7 and 3-8).
As discussed above, the Land Use Element would be updated to ensure consistency with the Housing and the Environmental Safety and Public Services Elements. These updates would ensure
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 436
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.10-15 October 2022
consistency between the General Plan and Title 18, Zoning as required by State law. New MultiFamily (RM-100) and Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use designations would be created along the El Camino Real and San Carlos Avenue corridors and the Downtown area west of El Camino Real.
Zoning districts would be updated to correspond to the new General Plan land use designations.
Table 3-5: Proposed Zones and Densities in Chapter 3 Project Description shows the existing and new zoning mixed use categories with the existing and proposed density per acre.
The proposed amendments also include updating the development/design standards to remove housing development constraints (such as setbacks, height, parking, and open space requirements) and reflect recent changes in State law, and to better reflect current development practices and the new density changes. These proposed amendments reflect the City’s planning for additional single units (e.g., anticipated units from SB9 and ADUs), and additional multi-unit housing types in the multi-unit zones and in the mixed-use zones. New and amended zoning designations would include Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use designations that would allow up to 120 dwelling units per acre along El Camino Real and San Carlos Avenue.
The project includes programs with amendments to the Development Code to be enacted after adoption of the Housing and Environmental Safety and Public Services Elements Update project; however, this EIR contemplates these actions as implementing programs and activities of the project. The purpose of the amendments is to make Title 18 consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the project. Amendments to Title 18 necessary to implement these programs will be adopted for the "opportunity sites,” to implement the Housing and Safety Elements, and as necessary to meet the RHNA. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the zoning ordinance.
Future development of inventory sites with new dwelling units would be required to be consistent with the amended General Plan and zoning designations, as well as applicable development standards. Where adverse physical effects on the environment could result from the future development of housing on the proposed housing sites, those potential impacts are addressed in the appropriate environmental sections of this EIR. Additionally, potential conflicts with planning documents pertaining to a specific environmental topics, such as Noise, are identified within those applicable sections of the EIR.
Plan Bay Area 2050
The proposed project would be consistent with the growth projections included in the Plan Bay Area 2050. Throughout Plan Bay Area 2050, Growth Geographies are geographic areas used to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused under the plan’s strategies over the next 30 years. These geographies are identified for growth either by local jurisdictions or because of their proximity to transit or access to opportunity. ABAG and MTC have provided an interactive online GIS map of the nine-county Bay Area that allows users to zoom in to specific
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 437
Chapter 4.10 Land Use
4.10-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
localities.1 There are High Resource Areas, Priority Development Areas, and Transit-Rich Areas Plan Bay Area 2050 growth geographies located within the City of San Carlos. As the growth geographies are meant to encourage the development of housing in proximity to existing and future employment centers and/or public transit, housing developed within and in proximity to a growth area would contribute to meeting this objective.
The proposed housing sites would further new housing development in City in compliance with its RHNA, which would advance residential growth promoted in Plan Bay Area 2050. The project has been developed to show the City can accommodate 3,576 housing units, which is 841 housing units beyond its RHNA of 2,735 housing units. The project is consistent with the RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050.
The proposed Focused GPU is intended to update the City’s Housing and Environmental Safety and Community Services Elements according to state law, and to update other portions of the General Plan for internal consistency. The Municipal Code will be updated to reflect the new General Plan Land Use designations and housing and safety element polices. The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and therefore has a less than significant land use impact.
4.10.5 References
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/d74d81cfce2a4bc9851858f087b78f49/explore?location=
38.002291,-121.766977,15.00.
Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021.
Plan Bay Area 2050, May 26.
City of San Carlos. 2021. Existing Conditions Atlas, San Carlos 2040, January 6. 1 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies,
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/d74d81cfce2a4bc9851858f087b78f49/explore?location=38.002291,- 121.766977,15.00.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 438
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-1 October 2022
4.11 NOISE
This EIR chapter provides background information on the nature of sound and vibration transmission; describes the existing noise environment in the project area; summarizes applicable noise guidelines, standards, and regulations; and evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts that could result from the implementation of the Focused GPU (the project). The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element and all other project components not mentioned in this analysis will not have an appreciable effect on noise. Where necessary, this section includes mitigation measures that would reduce noise and vibration impacts associated with the project.
4.11.1 Fundamentals of Environmental Acoustics
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound and is widely recognized as a form of environmental degradation. Airborne sound is the rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. The frequency (pitch), amplitude (intensity or loudness), and duration of a sound all contribute to the effect on a listener or receptor and whether the receptor perceives the sound as "noisy" or annoying.
Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound and depends on the frequency of the vibrations by which it is produced. Sound frequency is expressed in cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz). Humans generally hear sounds with frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz and perceive higher frequency sounds, or high pitch noise, as louder than low-frequency sounds or sounds low in pitch. Sound intensity or loudness is a function of the amplitude of the pressure wave generated by a noise source combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Atmospheric factors and obstructions between the noise source and receptor also affect the loudness perceived by the receptor. Sound pressure levels are typically expressed on a logarithmic scale in decibels (dB). A dB is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude (i.e., intensity or loudness) of a sound, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing for the healthy, unimpaired human ear.
Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense, and so on. In general, there is a relationship between a sound's subjective noisiness or loudness and its intensity, with each 10 dB increase in sound level perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Due to the logarithmic basis, decibels cannot be directly added or subtracted using common arithmetic operations. Instead, the combined sound level from two or more sources must be combined logarithmically. For example, if one noise source produces a sound power level of 50 dBA, two of the same sources would combine to produce 53 dB. In general, when one source is 10 dB higher than another source, the quieter source does not add to the sound levels produced by the louder source because the louder source contains ten times more sound energy than the quieter source.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 439
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Sound Characterization
Although humans generally can hear frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz, most sounds humans are normally exposed to do not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad range of frequencies perceived differently by the human ear. Humans are generally most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000–8,000 Hz and perceive sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude in higher or lower frequencies. Therefore, instruments used to measure sound include an electrical filter that enables the instrument's detectors to replicate human hearing. This filter, known as the "A-weighting" or "A-weighted sound level," filters low and very high frequencies, giving greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is typically most sensitive. Most environmental measurements are reported in dBA, meaning decibels on the Ascale. See Table 4.11-1 for a list of common noise sources and their A-weighted noise levels.
Sound levels are usually not steady and vary over time. Therefore, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations over a period of time is necessary. The continuous equivalent noise level (Leq) descriptor is used to represent the sound's average character over time. The Leq represents the steady-state noise level with the same acoustical energy as the time-varying noise measured over a given time period. Leq is useful for evaluating shorter time periods over the course of a day. The most common Leq averaging period is hourly. However, Leq can describe any series of noise events over a given time period.
Variable noise levels are the values exceeded for a portion of the measured time period. Thus, the L01, L10, L50, and L90 descriptors represent the sound levels exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time the measurement was performed. The L90 value usually corresponds to the background sound level at the measurement location.
When considering environmental noise, it is important to account for people's different responses to daytime and nighttime noise. In general, during the nighttime, background noise levels are generally quieter than during the daytime but also more noticeable because household noise has decreased as people begin to retire and sleep. Noise exposure over the course of an entire day is described by the day/night average sound level, Ldn (or DNL), and the community noise equivalent level, or CNEL, descriptors. Both descriptors represent the 24-hour noise exposure in a community or area. For Ldn, the 24-hour day is divided into a 15-hour daytime period (7 AM to 10 PM) and a 9-hour nighttime period (10 PM to 7 AM), and a 10 dB "penalty" is added to measure nighttime noise levels when calculating the 24-hour average noise level. For example, a 45 dBA nighttime sound level would contribute as much to the overall day-night average as a 55 dBA daytime sound level. The CNEL descriptor is similar to Ldn, except that it includes an additional 5 dBA penalty for noise events that occur during the evening time period (7 PM to 10 PM). The artificial penalties imposed during Ldn and CNEL calculations are intended to account for a receptor's increased sensitivity to noise levels during quieter nighttime periods.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 440
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-3 October 2022
Table 4.11-1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 105
100
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 95
90 Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph 85 Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noise urban area, daytime 75
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area 65 Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
55 Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher next room
45 Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime 35
30 Library
Quite rural nighttime 25 Bedroom at night
20 15 Broadcast/recording studio
10 5
Typical threshold of human hearing 0 Typical threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans, 2013
Sound Propagation
The energy contained in a sound pressure wave dissipates and is absorbed by the surrounding environment as the sound wave spreads out and travels away from the noise-generating source.
The strength of the source is often characterized by its "sound power level." Sound power level is independent of the distance a receiver is from the source and is a property of the source alone.
Knowing the sound power level of an idealized source and its distance from a receiver, the sound pressure level at a specific point (e.g., a property line or a receiver) can be calculated based on geometrical spreading and attenuation (noise reduction) as a result of distance and environmental factors, such as ground cover (asphalt vs. grass or trees), atmospheric absorption, and shielding by terrain or barriers.
For an ideal "point" source of sound, such as mechanical equipment, the energy in a sound pressure wave dissipates and is absorbed by the surrounding environment as the sound wave spreads out in a spherical pattern and travels away from the point source. Theoretically, the sound level attenuates, or decreases, by 6 dB with each doubling of distance from the point source. In contrast, a "line" source of sound, such as roadway traffic or a rail line, spreads out in a cylindrical pattern and theoretically attenuates by 3 dB with each doubling of distance from the line source; however, the sound level at a receptor location can be modified further by additional factors. The first is the presence of a reflecting plane such as the ground. A reflecting plane typically increases A-weighted sound pressure levels by 3 dB for hard ground. If the surface absorbs some of the reflected sound, this increase will be less than 3 dB. Other factors affecting the predicted sound pressure level are
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 441
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
often lumped together into a term called "excess attenuation." Excess attenuation is the amount of additional attenuation that occurs beyond simple spherical or cylindrical spreading. For sound propagation outdoors, there is almost always excess attenuation, producing lower levels than what would be predicted by spherical or cylindrical spreading. Some examples include attenuation by sound absorption in air; attenuation by barriers; attenuation by rain, sleet, snow, or fog; attenuation by grass, shrubbery, and trees; and attenuation from shadow zones created by wind and temperature gradients. Under certain meteorological conditions, like fog and low-level clouds, some of these excess attenuation mechanisms are reduced or eliminated due to noise reflection.
Noise Effects
Noise effects on human beings are generally categorized as:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and/or dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning, or relaxing • Physiological effects such as startling and hearing loss Most environmental noise levels produce subjective or interference effects; physiological effects are usually limited to high noise environments such as industrial manufacturing facilities or airports.
Predicting the subjective and interference effects of noise is difficult due to the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and past experiences with noise; however, an accepted method to determine a person's subjective reaction to a new noise source is to compare it with the existing environment without the noise source, or the "ambient" noise environment. In general, the more a new noise source exceeds the ambient noise level, the more likely it is to be considered annoying and to disturb normal activities.
Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1‐dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single‐frequency ("pure‐tone") signals in the mid‐frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people are able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness that would almost certainly cause an adverse response from community noise receptors.
Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Vibration is the movement of particles within a medium or object such as the ground or a building.
Vibration may be caused by natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or humans (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 442
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-5 October 2022
Vibration sources are usually characterized as continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions.
As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency; however, unlike airborne sound, there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration amplitudes can be expressed in terms of velocity (inches per second) or discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration.
Vibration impacts to buildings are usually discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). PPV represents the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is most appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage.
Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment. The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to annoy those working and residing in the area. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows).
Ground-borne vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments, such as electron microscopes.
Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads.
Ground-borne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile driving, grading activity has the greatest potential for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large trucks, or other heavy equipment are used.
Groundborne noise is noise generated by vibrating building surfaces such as floors, walls, and ceilings that radiate noise inside buildings subjected to an external source of vibration. The vibration level, the acoustic radiation of the vibrating element, and the acoustical absorption of the room are all factors that affect potential ground-borne noise generation.
4.11.2 Environmental Setting
The City's existing General Plan Noise Element identifies the primary contributors to the City's noise environment as coming from motor vehicles and aircraft overflights. Other sources of community noise include rail activities and commercial and industrial land uses. This description is still accurate; the City's Existing Conditions Atlas prepared for the project identifies roadway traffic noise levels as an ongoing concern in the City.
The principal noise source within the project area is from vehicular traffic, including automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles. The level of noise generated by vehicular traffic generally varies according to the volume of traffic, the percentage of trucks, and average traffic speed. One rail line operated by Caltrain runs through the City. The 2030 Projected Noise Contours from the existing General Plan indicate that the project has proposed residential developments within the railway's 65 Ldn contour.
The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document provides recommended ground-borne vibration criteria for general environmental assessments. The vibration criteria vary according to the sensitivity of the land use and the
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 443
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
frequency of vibration events (i.e., number of trains passing by the sensitive land use), as shown in Table 4.11-5. For frequent events (i.e., more than 70 trains passing by in one day), the criteria generally vary between 65 VdB for buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations (e.g., highly sensitive research facilities, hospitals), to 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, to 75 VdB for land uses with primarily daytime use. Highly sensitive research facilities and hospitals are not anticipated under the proposed project and, therefore, the 65 VdB threshold is not considered further in this analysis. The FTA's guidance document contains generalized ground surface vibration curves derived from vibration measurements of transit systems in North America (FTA 2018, Figure 6-4). Based on these vibration prediction curves, proposed residential development within approximately 200 feet of a passenger rail line as measured from the centerline of the track could be exposed to vibration levels that exceed the FTA's recommended threshold of 72 VdB for residences. Similarly, other proposed land uses within approximately 120 feet of a passenger rail line could be exposed to vibration levels that exceed the FTA's recommended threshold of 75 VdB for land uses with primarily daytime occupancy. Therefore, future planned developments along the railway could be exposed to excessive transit train vibration levels that exceed FTA-recommended vibration criteria (for human annoyance and response factors) of 72 or 75 VdB, respectively.
The San Carlos Airport is located in the eastern area of the City, east of Hwy 101, near the Holly Avenue interchange. San Carlos Airport is owned and operated by San Mateo County (Public Works, Airports Division) and accommodates almost 400 based aircraft and a variety of aviationrelated businesses including flight schools. San Carlos Airport is designated as a reliever airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Reliever airports are located in major metropolitan areas and provide general aviation pilots and users with an alternative to congested commercial service airports like San Francisco International Airport. The project area is not located in any noise contour zone associated with this airport.
Measured Ambient Noise Levels
The existing ambient noise levels in the project area were monitored in September 2022 (MD 2022; see Appendix E). The ambient noise monitoring conducted for this EIR included four (4) short-term (ST) and 2 long-term (LT) measurements at locations selected to:
• Provide direct observations of existing noise sources in and in the vicinity of the project area;
• Determine ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project area; and • Evaluate potential noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors (see "Noise Sensitive Receptors" below).
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 444
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-7 October 2022
The ambient noise monitoring locations are shown in Figure 4.11-1 and described below. • Location LT-1 was at the western corner of the intersection of Chestnut Street and San Carlos Avenue. This location was approximately 56 feet from the centerline of San Carlos Avenue and 35 feet from the centerline of Chestnut Street. The ambient noise levels measured at location LT-1 are considered representative of background noise levels along the mixed-use portions of San Carlos Avenue.
• Location LT-2 was at the intersection of El Camino Real and Hull Drive. This location was approximately 80 feet from the centerline of El Camino Real. The ambient noise levels measured at LT-2 are considered representative of background noise in mixed-use portions of El Camino Real.
• Location ST-1 was located at the eastern corner of San Carlos Ave and Bayport Avenue.
The ambient noise levels measured at ST-1 are considered representative of background daytime noise levels in the residential area northeast of San Carlos Avenue. • Location ST-2 was located on the northern corner of Laurel Street and Brittan Avenue.
This location was approximately 25 feet from the centerline of Main Street. The ambient noise levels measured at ST-2 are considered representative of background daytime noise levels along Laurel Street.
• Location ST-3 was along Howard Avenue in an alleyway between El Camino Real and Laurel Street. The ambient noise levels measured at ST-3 are considered representative of background daytime noise of commercial properties in the mixed-use South Boulevard area.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 445
Source: MD Acoustics, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.11-1 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 446
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-9 October 2022
• Location ST-4 was near the intersection of Coronado Avenue and Vista Del Grande. This location was approximately 50 feet from the centerline of roadways. The ambient noise levels measured at ST-4 are considered representative of background daytime noise levels in multifamily residential areas of the City.
Based on observations made during the ambient noise monitoring, the existing noise environment in the project area consists primarily of localized and regional transportation noise sources. Away from major arterial and collector roads, local residential/commercial land use operations are the primary contributors to the local ambient noise environment. Table 4.11-2 summarizes the results of the long-term ambient noise monitoring and Table 4.11-3 summarizes the results of the shortterm ambient noise monitoring conducted for this EIR.
Table 4.11-2: Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA) in the Project Area Day / Site Start Time
Duratio
n
Measured Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime Leq Evening Leq Nighttime Leq Ldn
Thursday-Friday, July 21-22, 2022
LT-1 8 AM-8 AM 24-hours 63.4 61.7 56.4 64.7
LT-2 9 AM-9 AM 24-hours 70.1 67.7 62.8 71.1
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC (see Appendix E)
Table 4.11-3: Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA) in the Project Area Day / Site Start Time Duration
Measured Noise Level (dBA)
Leq Lmin Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
Friday, July 22, 2022
ST-1 10:13 AM 10-minutes 57.9 43.8 76.0 66.1 59.9 55.0 50.1 45.8 ST-2 10:56 AM 10-minutes 63.2 50.8 76.9 69.8 67.8 62.7 59.6 55.6 ST-3 11:24 AM 10-minutes 63.4 51.4 75.3 72.9 67.0 61.7 59.7 54.7 ST-4 12:03 PM 10-minutes 50.0 38.2 67.7 59.1 55.1 47.4 42.0 39.1 Source: MD Acoustics, LLC (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 4.11-2 and Table 4.11-3, daytime noise levels were lower in the primarily residential areas (ST-1 and ST-4) and higher near the mixed-use and commercial areas (LT-1, LT2, ST-2 and ST-3). Measured noise levels were the highest close to the major arterials El Camino Real.
Existing 2019 and Future 2040 Traffic Noise Levels
Existing 2019 traffic noise levels were computed using the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) methodology. The model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, roadway geometry, and other variables to compute 24-hour traffic noise levels at user-defined receptor distances from the roadway center. The TNM modeling conducted for this EIR incorporates worst-case assumptions about motor vehicle traffic and noise levels; specifically, calculations are based on "hard" site conditions and do not I I I
I I I
I I I
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 447
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
incorporate any natural or artificial shielding, with the exception of US 101, which includes a noise barrier.
Information on existing 2019 average daily traffic volumes was obtained from the traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for the project (W-Trans, 2022). Traffic noise levels were estimated for typical daytime (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM), evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours using typical hourly distributions within California cities. The mix of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy duty trucks were given by 2020 Caltrans Truck volumes.
Roadway segments were modeled as straight-line segments without any flow controls. Modeled noise levels, therefore, represent free-flow traffic conditions. Vehicles were assumed to travel the posted speed limit on each modeled roadway segment.
The TIA prepared for the project also includes an analysis of cumulative 2040 traffic conditions that would occur based on continued implementation of the City's current General Plan at the land use development intensities permitted by the project. The future 2040 baseline cumulative traffic noise levels were estimated using the same methodology as described for the existing traffic noise analysis. Traffic noise levels were computed using TNM methodology and the same roadway geometry factors assumed for existing traffic noise levels.
Modeled traffic noise levels for existing 2019 and cumulative 2040 traffic noise levels are shown in Table 4.11-4. Existing traffic noise contours are shown in Figure 4.11-2 (Existing Traffic Noise Contours). Please refer to Appendix E for detailed information on existing traffic noise modeling assumptions.
Table 4.11-4: Existing (2019) and Future (2040) Traffic Noise Levels Road / Segment
Existing (2019) Future (2040) Net Change
ADT Ldn(A) ADT Ldn (A) ADT Ldn
Holly St
US-101 to Industrial Rd 53,473 71.3 49,906 71.0 -3,567 -0.3 Industrial Rd to Old County Rd 27,343 66.3 27,236 66.3 -107 0 Old County Rd to El Camino Real 23,859 65.7 27,831 66.4 3,972 0.7 El Camino Real
Harbor Blvd to Hull Dr 18,541 68.3 30,094 70.4 11,553 2.1 Hull Dr to Holly St 19,010 66.8 30,533 68.9 11,523 2.1
Holly St to San Carlos Ave 29,487 68.7 35,788 69.6 6,301 0.9 San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 7,433 60.9 13,932 63.7 6,499 2.8 Cherry St to Arroyo Ave 7,373 60.9 13,455 63.5 6,082 2.6 Arroyo Ave to Brittan Ave 16,440 64.4 23,889 66.0 7,449 1.6 Brittan Ave to Howard Ave 20,487 65.3 30,278 67.0 9,791 1.7 Howard Ave to White Oak Way 17,574 64.7 27,247 66.6 9,673 1.9 White Oak Way to St Francis Way 17,341 64.6 26,772 66.5 9,431 1.9 St Francis Way to Whipple Ave 19,942 65.2 29,095 66.9 9,153 1.7 Laurel St
San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 14,378 61.4 15,267 61.6 889 0.2 Cherry St to Arroyo Ave 10,431 60.0 11,887 60.5 1,456 0.5 San Carlos Ave
El Camino Real to Laurel St 22,156 67.4 22,429 67.4 273 0 Laurel St to Walnut St 17,878 66.5 19,810 66.9 1,932 0.4
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 448
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-11 October 2022
Table 4.11-4: Existing (2019) and Future (2040) Traffic Noise Levels Road / Segment
Existing (2019) Future (2040) Net Change
ADT Ldn(A) ADT Ldn (A) ADT Ldn
Walnut St to Elm St 18,659 66.6 20,456 67.0 1,797 0.4
Elm St to Cedar St 18,667 68.2 20,487 68.6 1,820 0.4
Cedar St to Cordilleras Ave 15,831 64.2 17,661 64.6 1,830 0.4 Industrial Rd
Holly St to San Carlos Ave 16,069 64.2 22,086 65.6 6,017 1.4 San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 3,368 57.4 10,441 62.4 7,073 5 Cherry St to Terminal Way 3,895 58.1 11,001 62.6 7,106 4.5 Terminal Way to Bransten Rd 3,795 58.0 11,001 62.6 7,206 4.6 US-101
Harbor Blvd to Brittan Ave 220,220 82.6 257,675 83.3 37,455 0.7 Hull Dr
El Camino Real to Cedar St 6,059 57.6 6,260 57.7 201 0.1 Cherry St
El Camino Real to Cedar St 12,782 60.8 13,196 61.0 414 0.2 Arroyo Ave
El Camino Real to Laurel St 9,067 59.3 10,435 60.0 1,368 0.7 Laurel St to Elm St 1,361 51.1 1,437 51.3 76 0.2
Source: MD, 2022 (see Appendix E)
Ldn values are as estimated 50 feet from the road center except for US-101 (Ldn at 100 feet) The results of the traffic noise modeling indicate that existing traffic noise levels within the project area are highest along US 101, Holly St, El Camino Real, and San Carlos Avenue. Specifically, the modeling shows:
• Existing traffic noise levels along Holly St are estimated to be approximately 66 to 71 Ldn at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the roadway. From US-101 to Industrial Road, the use is industrial. From Industrial Road to El Camino Real the uses are primarily residential and commercial. The estimated existing traffic noise levels are within the City's conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for residential uses (75 Ldn) and are within the City's conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for commercial land uses (80 Ldn). 2040 traffic noise levels are estimated to increase by less than 1 dB and all segments will remain within the same compatibility ranges.
• Existing traffic noise levels along El Camino Real are estimated to be approximately 61- 69 Ldn at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the roadway. Land uses along El Camino Real include mixed-use and multi-family residential. These mixed uses include residential, personal care, office buildings, and hotels. The levels are within the normally acceptable limits for office buildings, business, commercial and professional (70 Ldn) and conditionally acceptable limits for personal care (75 Ldn). Hotels and multi-family residential between San Carlos Avenue and Brittan Avenue and Howard Avenue to Saint Francis Way are within the normally acceptable range (65 dBA). Hotels and multi-family residential uses on all other sections of El Camino Real are within the conditionally acceptable range (75 Ldn). Office buildings, business, commercial and professional along Harbor Boulevard to Hull Drive are predicted to be in the conditionally acceptable range by 2040. Hotels and multi-family residential uses from Arroyo Avenue to Brittan Avenue
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 449
Source: MD Acoustics 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.11-2 2019 Roadway Noise Contours
Levels in dB(A)
- < 45
45 so
so 55
55 60
- 60 65
- >= 65
Signs and symbols
==== Road
Length scale 1:1150
111•s11:o:::: 0==1ojo111 o••••20ii:o::::0====3jooi.,
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 450
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-13 October 2022
and Howard Avenue to Saint Francis Way will be in the conditionally acceptable range by 2040. The overall levels will increase by less than 3 dB by 2040 for all segments. • Existing traffic noise levels along San Carlos Avenue are estimated to be approximately 64 to 68 Ldn at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the roadway. Land uses include multi-family residential, a park, commercial, and personal care. The estimated existing traffic noise levels are within the City's conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for personal care (75 Ldn) and are within the City's normally acceptable noise exposure level for commercial land uses (70 Ldn). Multi-family uses from Cedar Street to Cordilleras Avenue are within the normally acceptable range (65 Ldn). All other segments are within the conditionally acceptable limit for multi-family residential uses (75 Ldn). The park is within the conditionally acceptable range (80 Ldn). 2040 traffic noise levels are estimated to increase by less than 1 dB and all segments will remain within the same compatibility ranges.
• Existing traffic noise levels along Industrial Road are estimated to be approximately 57 to 64 Ldn at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the roadway. These segments are likely just as or more impacted by US-101 noise as Industrial Road noise. Land uses are primarily single-family residential and industrial with some commercial by Holly Street. The levels are within the normally acceptable range for commercial uses (70 Ldn). From Holly Street to San Carlos Avenue, the levels are within the conditionally acceptable range for singlefamily residential (75 Ldn). However, most houses along that segment are shielded by CMU walls, which would bring the level at the residences down to a normally acceptable range (60 Ldn) at those residences. All other segments are in the normally acceptable range for single-family residential. However, these segments are likely in the 60-65 Ldn range due to the noise from US-101. Houses with CMU walls are estimated to be in the normally acceptable range and houses without CMU walls are estimated to be in the conditionally acceptable range throughout the single-family residential portion of Industrial Road. By 2040, all segments will be in the conditionally acceptable range due to traffic from Industrial Road. The combined impact from Industrial Road and US-101 will remain in the conditionally acceptable range by 2040. In 2040, houses with CMU walls will continue to be in the normally acceptable range.
• Existing traffic noise levels along US 101 are above 80 Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the center of the roadway. Overall levels are anticipated to increase by less than 1 dB by 2040. The estimated existing traffic noise levels exceed the City's conditionally acceptable noise exposure level for commercial land uses (80 Ldn) and hotels (75 Ldn) contained in the City's General Plan. These areas are Industrial and General Industrial/Commercial per the General Plan. Industrial areas do not have land use compatibility standards.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 451
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
• Existing traffic noise levels along Cherry Street. are 61 Ldn at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the roadway. Land uses include multi-family residential, commercial, and a library. The levels are within the normally acceptable range from multi-family residential (65 Ldn) and commercial (70 Ldn) uses. The levels are within the conditionally acceptable range for libraries (75 Ldn). 2040 traffic noise levels are estimated to increase by less than 1 dB and all segments will remain within the same compatibility ranges. • All other segments are within normally acceptable limits for the adjacent land uses and will increase by less than 1 dB by 2040.
Other Non-Transportation Noise Sources
Non-transportation sources also contribute to the project area's existing noise environment.
Commercial and industrial land uses located throughout the project area (but primarily along key roadways like US 101, El Camino Real, and San Carlos Avenue), schools and outdoor park and recreation facilities, and residential land uses generate noise from daily operations of landscaping equipment, stationary sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, business deliveries, solid waste pickup services, etc. Such sources are considered local source of noise that only influence the immediate surroundings.
Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive receptors are buildings or areas where unwanted sound or increases in sound may have an adverse effect on people or land uses. Residential areas, motels and hotels, hospitals and health care facilities, school facilities, and parks are examples of noise receptors that could be sensitive to changes in existing environmental noise levels. In general, potential noise-sensitive receptors within the project area include:
• Existing low density, medium density, high density, and mixed-use residential receptors within the project area.
• Existing neighborhood, community, and other parks.
In addition to existing sensitive noise receptors, the proposed project would increase development density in the project area and would provide for new residential and mixed use residential and commercial opportunities.
4.11.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
No federal regulations apply to noise or vibration from the proposed project, but the FTA's 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual document sets ground-borne vibration
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 452
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-15 October 2022
annoyance criteria for general assessments. The criteria vary by the type of building being subjected to the vibrations, and the overall number of vibration events occurring each day.
Category 1 buildings are considered buildings where vibration would interfere with operation, even at levels that are below human detection. These include buildings with sensitive equipment, such as research facilities and recording studios. Category 2 buildings include residential lands and buildings were people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 buildings consist of institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. The FTA standards vary for "frequent" events (occurring more than 70 times per day, such as a rapid transit project), "occasional" events (occurring between 30 to 70 times per day), and "infrequent" events (occurring less than 30 times per day). The FTA's vibration annoyance criteria are summarized in Table 4.11-5.
Table 4.11-5: FTA Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment Land Use Category/Type
Impact Level (Velocity Decibels)
Frequent
Events
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1 – Buildings with sensitive equipment 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB Category 2 – Buildings where people sleep 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB Category 3 – Institutional buildings 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB Source: FTA 2018
State
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code is contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and consists of 11 different parts that sets forth various construction and building requirements. Part 2, California Building Code, Section 1206, Sound Transmission, establishes sound transmission standards for interior walls, partitions, and floor/ceiling assemblies.
Specifically, Section 1206.4 establishes that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL (as set by the local General Plan) in any habitable room.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code is Part 11 to the California Building Standards Code. Chapter 5, Nonresidential Mandatory Standards, Section 5.507 establishes the following requirements for non-residential development that may be applicable to the project. • Section 5.507.4.1.1 sets forth that buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dBA Leq (1- hour) during any hour of operation shall have exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composting sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 45 (or an outdoor indoor transmission class [OITC] of 35), with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40.
• Section 5.507.4.2 sets forth that wall and roof assemblies for buildings exposed to a 65 dBA Leq pursuant to Section 5.507.4.1.1 shall be constructed to provide an interior noise
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 453
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-16 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed 50 dBA Leq in occupied areas during any hour of operation. This requirement shall be documented by an acoustical analysis documenting interior sound levels prepared by personnel approved by the architect or engineer of record.
Caltrans
The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual provides a summary of vibration criteria that have been reported by researchers, organizations, and governmental agencies (Caltrans 2013b). Chapters Nos. 6 and 7 of the aforementioned guidance manual summarizes vibration detection and annoyance criteria from various agencies and provides Caltrans' recommended guidelines and thresholds for evaluating potential vibration impacts on buildings and humans from transportation and construction projects.
These thresholds are summarized in Table 4.11-6 and Table 4.11-7.
Table 4.11-6: Caltrans' Vibration Threshold Criteria for Building Damage Structural Integrity
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.12 to 0.2
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50
Source: Caltrans 2020
Table 4.11-7: Caltrans' Vibration Threshold Criteria for Human Response Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Slightly perceptible 0.035 0.012
Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe/Disturbing 2.0 0.7 (at 2 Hz) to 0.17 (at 20 Hz)
Very disturbing -- 3.6 (at 2 Hz) to 0.4 (at 20 Hz)
Source: Caltrans 2020
California General Plan Guidelines
OPR publishes the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which provide guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific community noise levels. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise-acceptability standards that reflect the particular community's noise-control goals, sensitivity to noise, and assessment of the relative importance of noise issues. OPR's base guidelines for establishing land use patterns that minimizes exposure of community residents to excessive noise are presented in Table 4.11-8 (OPR, 2017).
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 454
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-17 October 2022
Table 4.11-8: OPR General Plan Guidelines for Community Noise Exposure Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure Limit (CNEL or Ldn, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential - Low-Density SingleFamily, Duplex, Mobile Homes 60 70 75 75+ Residential - Multi-Family 65 70 75 75+
Transient Lodging - Motels,
Hotels 65 70 80 80+
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 70 70 80 80+
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters N/A 70 N/A 70+
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports N/A N/A 75 75+
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 70 75 75+
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75 N/A 80 80+
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional 70 77.5 77.5+ N/A
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture 75 80 80+ N/A
Source: OPR, 2017, Appendix D, Figure 2
Local
San Carlos General Plan
The City's existing 2030 Noise Element includes the following goals and policies relevant to the project under the existing General Plan.
Goal NOI-1: Encourage compatible noise environments for new development and control sources of excessive noise citywide.
Policy NOI-1.1: Use the Noise and Land Compatibility Standards shown in Figure 9-1, the noise level performance standards in Table 9-1 and the projected future noise contours for the General Plan shown in Figure 9-3 and detailed in Table 9-2, as a guide for future planning and development decisions.
Policy NOI-1.2: Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses. Noise-sensitive land uses include residential uses, retirement homes, hotel/motels, schools, libraries, community centers, places of public assembly, daycare facilities, churches and hospitals.
Policy NOI-1.3: Limit noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses to noise level standards as indicated in Table 9-1.
Policy NOI-1.4: Require a detailed acoustic report in all cases where noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL Ldn or greater. If
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 455
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-18 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.
Policy NOI-1.5: New development of noise-sensitive land uses proposed in noise-impacted areas shall incorporate effective mitigation measures into the project design to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
• A. For new single-family residential development, maintain a standard of 60 Ldn (day/night average noise level) for exterior noise in private use areas. • B. For new multi-family residential development maintain a standard of 65 Ldn in community outdoor recreation areas. Noise standards are not applied to private decks and balconies and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis in the downtown core. • C. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 Ldn in all new residential units (single- and multi-family). Development sites exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 Ldn shall be analyzed following protocols in Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208, A, Sound Transmission Control, 2001 Building Code Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2 of the 2007 California Building Code (or the latest revision). • D. Where new residential units (single and multi-family) would be exposed to intermittent noise levels generated during train operations, maximum railroad noise levels in-side homes shall not exceed 50 dBA in bedrooms or 55 dBA in other occupied spaces. These single event limits are only applicable where there are normally four or more train operations per day.
Policy NOI-1.6: Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the noise level standards, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design.
The use of noise barriers shall be considered after practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.
Policy NOI-1.7: The City shall seek to reduce impacts from ground-borne vibration associated with rail operations by requiring that vibration-sensitive buildings (e.g. residences) are sited at least 100 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks whenever feasible. The development of vibration-sensitive buildings within 100 feet from the centerline of the rail-road tracks would require a study demonstrating that ground borne vibration issues associated with rail operations have been adequately addressed (i.e. through building siting, foundation design and construction techniques).
Policy NOI-1.8: During all phases of construction activity, reasonable noise reduction measures shall be utilized to minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels.
• Construction activities shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 456
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-19 October 2022
Policy NOI-1.9: Minimize potential transportation related noise through the use of setbacks, street circulation design, coordination of routing and other traffic control measures and the construction of noise barriers and consider use of "quiet" pavement surfaces when resurfacing roadways.
Policy NOI-1.10: Ensure that mixed-use development projects are designed to minimize noise impacts on residential units.
Policy NOI-1.11: Ensure that proposed noise sensitive land uses include appropriate mitigation to reduce noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Carlos Airport. Work with the San Carlos Airport Pilots Association and San Mateo County to continue to refine and implement the Airport's noise abatement procedures.
Policy NOI-1.12: Ensure consistency with the noise compatibility policies and criteria contained in the San Carlos Airport Land Use Plan.
Policy NOI-1.13: Require a noise analysis for new residential uses located within the 55 CNEL impact area of the San Carlos Airport. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.
Policy NOI-1.14: The Federal Transit Administration vibration impact criteria and assessment methods shall be used to evaluate the compatibility of train vibration with proposed land uses adjoining the UPRR (Caltrain) corridor. Site specific vibration studies shall be completed for vibration-sensitive uses proposed within 100 feet of active railroad tracks.
Action NOI-1.4 is important to note, as it states that projects would be significant if the Ldn at noise-sensitive uses increase by 3 dB or more and exceed the "normally acceptable" level, by 5 dB or more and remain "normally acceptable", and cause noise levels to exceed Table
4.11-10.
Additionally, the City's existing General Plan Noise Element establishes land use compatibility standards shown in Table 4.11-9.
Table 4.11-9: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure Level (Ldn)
Compatibility Limit (dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable Unacceptable
Single-Family Residential <60 60-75 75<
Multi-Family Residential, Hotels and Motels <65 65-75 75< Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Neighborhood
Parks and Playgrounds <65 65-80 80<
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals,
Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches <60 60-75 75<
Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and
Professional <70 70-80 80<
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 457
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-20 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.11-9: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure Level (Ldn)
Compatibility Limit (dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable Unacceptable
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters N/A <70 70<
Source: San Carlos General Plan, 2010, Figure 9-1
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
Section 9.30.030 of the Municipal Code states that except as otherwise permitted under this chapter, no person shall cause and no property owner shall permit, as to property owned by him, a noise produced by any person, amplified sound or device, or any combination thereof in excess of the noise limits established in Table 18.21.050-A (Table 4.13-10 of this report) to emanate from any property, public or private, as measured at the receiving property line.
Section 18.21.050 of the Municipal Code states:
A. Noise Limits. No use or activity shall create noise levels that exceed the following standards.
The maximum allowable noise levels specified in Table 18.21.050-A, Noise Limits, do not apply to noise generated by automobile traffic or other mobile noise sources in the public rightof-way.
1. Adjustments to Noise Limits. The maximum allowable noise levels of Table 18.21.050-A, Noise Limits, shall be adjusted according to the following provisions. No more than one increase in the maximum permissible noise level shall be applied to the noise generated on each property.
a. Ambient Noise. If the ambient noise level at a noise-sensitive use is ten dBA or more below the standard, the allowable noise standard shall be decreased by five decibels. b. Duration. The maximum allowable noise level (L50) shall be increased as follows to account for the effects of duration:
i. Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of fifteen minutes in any hour may exceed the noise limit by five decibels; and ii. Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of five minutes in any hour may exceed the noise limits by ten decibels;
iii. Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of one minute in any hour may exceed the noise limits by fifteen decibels.
c. Character of Sound. If a noise contains a steady audible tone or is a repetitive noise (such as hammering or riveting) or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the maximum allowable noise levels shall be reduced by five decibels.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 458
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-21 October 2022
d. Prohibited Noise. Noise for a cumulative period of thirty minutes or more in any hour which exceeds the noise standard for the receiving land use.
Part B of this section outlines the land use compatibility guidelines in Table 4.11-9.
Table 4.11-10: San Carlos Municipal Code Table 18.21.050-A: Noise Limits Land Use
Receiving the
Noise
Noise-Level
Descriptor
Exterior Noise Level Standard in
Any Hour (dBA)
Interior Noise-Level Standard in
Any Hour (dBA)
Daytime (7
a.m. – 10 p.m.)
Nighttime (10
p.m. – 7 a.m.)
Daytime (7 a.m.
– 10 p.m.)
Nighttime (10
p.m. – 7 a.m.)
Residential L50 55 45 40 30
Lmax 70 60 55 45
Medical,
convalescent
L50 55 45 45 35
Lmax 70 60 55 45
Theater,
auditorium
L50 - - 35 35
Lmax - - 50 50
Church, meeting
hall
L50 55 - 40 40
Lmax - - 55 55
School, library,
museum
L50 55 - 40 -
Lmax - - 55 -
Source: San Carlos Municipal Code, 2011.
C. Acoustic Study. The Director may require an acoustic study for any proposed project that could cause any of the following:
1. Locate new residential uses within the fifty-five CNEL impact area of the San Carlos Airport;
2. Cause noise levels to exceed the limits in Table 18.21.050-A;
3. Create a noise exposure that would require an acoustic study and noise attenuation measures listed in Table 18.21.050-B, Noise Exposure—Land Use Requirements and Limitations; or
4. Cause the Ldn at noise-sensitive uses to increase three dBA or more.
D. Establishing Ambient Noise. When the Director has determined that there could be cause to make adjustments to the standards, an acoustical study shall be performed to establish ambient noise levels. In order to determine if adjustments to the standards should be made either upwards or downwards, a minimum twenty-four-hour-duration noise measurement shall be conducted. The noise measurements shall collect data utilizing noise metrics that are consistent with the noise limits presented in Table 18.21.050-A, e.g., Lmax (zero minutes), L02 (one minute), L08 (five minutes), L25 (fifteen minutes) and L50 (thirty minutes). An arithmetic average of these ambient noise levels during the three quietest hours shall be made to demonstrate that the ambient noise levels are regularly ten or more decibels below the respective noise standards. Similarly, an arithmetic average of ambient noise levels during the three loudest hours should be made to demonstrate that ambient noise levels regularly exceed the noise standards.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 459
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-22 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
E. Noise Attenuation Measures. Any project subject to the acoustic study requirements of subsection C of this section may be required as a condition of approval to incorporate noise attenuation measures deemed necessary to ensure that noise standards are not exceeded.
1. New noise-sensitive uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain an interior noise level of forty-five dBA.
2. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels.
3. Emphasis shall be placed upon site planning and project design measures. The use of noise barriers shall be considered and may be required only after all feasible design-related noise measures have been incorporated into the project. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011) Section 18.21.060 states that no vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site.
Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.
4.11.4 Significance Thresholds
Per the CEQA Guidelines, project implementation would have a significant impact related to noise or vibration if it would result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; or c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
With regard to criteria (a), the proposed project would result in a significant construction and/or operational noise impact if it would:
• Conflict with or violate any applicable provision of Municipal Code Chapter 24 • Conflict with or violate any applicable standard or policy in the City's General Plan Noise Element
• Generate operational traffic noise levels that increase ambient noise levels at off-site locations by:
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 460
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-23 October 2022
o 5 dBA or more where the ambient noise level would change from normally acceptable to conditionally acceptable;
o 3 dBA or more where the existing ambient noise would change from conditionally acceptable to normally unacceptable; or
o 1 dBA or more where the existing ambient noise level is already normally unacceptable or would change from normally unacceptable to clearly unacceptable.
With regard to criterion (b), the proposed project would result in a significant construction and/or operational vibration impact if it would:
• Generate construction-related vibration levels that exceed Caltrans' guidance for potential building damage (see Table 4.11-6); or
• Generate construction-related vibration levels that exceed FTA or Caltrans' criteria for human annoyance (see Table 4.11-7).
With regard to criterion (c), the proposed project would expose people living or working in the Plan Area to excessive airport-related noise levels if it would conflict with an applicable airport land use compatibility plan or otherwise expose people to excessive airport-related noise levels from a private air facility.
4.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Noise-related impacts from future development pursuant to general plans can be divided into shortterm construction-related impacts and long-term noise exposure impacts. Construction-related impacts are associated with construction activities likely to occur in conjunction with future housing development. Long-term noise exposure is associated with major noise sources (e.g., traffic, trains, other transit, aircraft, and stationary sources) and changes in noise levels that may occur in the City as a result of implementation of the project.
Impact NOISE-1 – The project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less Than Significant Impact) Implementation of the project would involve housing construction that would result in temporary noise generation, primarily from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment.
The project allows for more mixed-use developments and allows for the increase of the overall amount of development within the project areas described in Chapter 3, Project Description.
Since individual project-specific information is not available at this time, potential short-term (construction-related) noise impacts can only be evaluated based on the typical construction activities associated with residential, commercial, and retail development. Potential construction
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 461
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-24 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
source noise and vibration levels were developed based on methodologies, reference noise levels, typical equipment usage, and other operating factors documented and contained in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006), Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2018), and Caltrans' Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2013a).
Reference levels are noise emissions for specific equipment or activity types that are welldocumented and for which their usage is common practice in the field of acoustics.
Construction activities associated with potential development projects could include: staging, demolition, site preparation (e.g., land clearing), fine and mass grading, utility trenching, foundation work (e.g., excavation, pouring concrete pads, drilling for piers), material deliveries (requiring travel along City roads), building construction (e.g., framing, concrete pouring, welding), paving, coating application, and site finishing work. In general, these activities would involve the use of worker vehicles, delivery trucks, dump trucks, and heavy-duty construction equipment such as (but not limited to) backhoes, tractors, loaders, graders, excavators, rollers, cranes, material lifts, generators, and air compressors. These types of construction activities would generate noise and vibration from the following sources:
• Heavy equipment operations at different work areas. Some heavy equipment would consist of mobile equipment such as a loader and excavator that would move around work areas; other equipment would consist of stationary equipment (e.g., cranes or material hoists/lifts) that would generally operate in a fixed location until work activities are complete. Heavy equipment generates noise from engine operation, mechanical systems and components (e.g., fans, gears, propulsion of wheels or tracks), and other sources such as backup alarms.
Mobile equipment generally operates at different loads, or power outputs, and produces higher or lower noise levels depending on the operating load. Stationary equipment generally operates at a steady power output that produces a constant noise level. • Vehicle trips, including worker, vendor, and haul truck trips. These trips are likely to primarily occur on key arterial roads and travel corridors.
Table 4.11-11 presents the noise levels associated with the typical types of construction equipment that could be used in the project area for future individual projects.
Construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, during noise-sensitive times of the day, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Demolition, site preparation, and grading phases typically result in the highest temporary noise levels due to the use of heavy-duty equipment such as bulldozers, excavators, graders, loaders, scrapers, and trucks. As shown in Table 4.11-11, the worst-case Leq and Lmax noise levels associated with the operation of construction equipment are predicted to be approximately 82 and 85 dBA, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment operating area. At an active construction site, it is not uncommon for two or more pieces of construction equipment to operate at the same time and in close proximity. The concurrent
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 462
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-25 October 2022
operation of two or more pieces of construction equipment would result in noise levels of approximately 85 to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from equipment operating areas1.
Table 4.11-11: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels (dBA) Equipment
Reference Noise
Level at 50 Feet
(Lmax)
(A)
Percent
Usage
Factor(B)
Predicted Noise Levels (Leq) at Distance(C)
50 Feet
100
Feet
200
Feet
300
Feet
400
Feet
500
Feet
Auger Drill Rig 85 0.2 78 72 66 62 60 58
Backhoe 80 0.4 76 70 64 60 58 56
Boring Jack
Power Unit 80 0.5 77 71 65 61 59 57
Bulldozer 85 0.4 81 75 69 65 63 61
Compact roller 80 0.2 73 67 61 57 55 53
Compressor 80 0.4 76 70 64 60 58 56
Concrete Mixer 85 0.4 81 75 69 65 63 61
Crane 85 0.16 77 71 65 61 59 57
Delivery Truck 84 0.4 80 74 68 64 62 60
Excavator 85 0.4 81 75 69 65 63 61
Front End Loader 80 0.4 76 70 64 60 58 56
Generator 82 0.5 79 73 67 63 61 59
Horizontal Boring
Hydraulic Jack 80 0.25 74 68 62 58 56 54
Impact Pile Driver
(low) 95 0.2 88 82 76 72 70 68
Impact Pile Driver
(high) 101 0.2 94 88 82 78 76 74
Man Lift 85 0.2 78 72 66 62 60 58
Paver 85 0.5 82 76 70 66 64 62
Pneumatic tools 85 0.5 82 76 70 66 64 62
Pumps 77 0.5 74 68 62 58 56 54
Roller 85 0.2 78 72 66 62 60 58
Scraper 85 0.4 81 75 69 65 63 61
Tractor 84 0.4 80 74 68 64 62 60
Vacuum Truck 85 0.4 81 75 69 65 63 61
Sources: Caltrans 2013a and FHWA 2010
(A) Lmax noise levels based on manufacturer's specifications. (B) Usage factor refers to the amount of time the equipment produces noise over the time period. (C) Estimate does not account for any atmospheric or ground attenuation factors. Calculated noise levels based on Caltrans, 2009: Leq (hourly) = Lmax at 50 feet – 20log (D/50) + 10log (UF), where: Lmax = reference Lmax from manufacturer or other source; D = distance of interest; UF = usage fraction or fraction of time period of interest equipment is in use.
The magnitude of each individual future project's temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be dependent upon a number of project-specific factors that are not known at this time, including: the amount and type of equipment being used; the distance between the area where equipment is being operated and the location of the specific land use or receptor where noise levels are being evaluated; the time of day construction activities are occurring; the presence or absence 1 As shown in Table 4.13-10, a single bulldozer provides a sound level of 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet; when two identical sound levels are combined, the noise level increases to 84 dBA Leq and when three identical sound levels are combined, the noise level increases to 86 dBA Leq. These estimates assume no shielding or other noise control measures are in place at or near the work areas.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 463
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-26 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
of any walls, buildings, or other barriers that may absorb or reflect sound waves; the total duration of the construction activities; and the existing ambient noise levels near construction areas. For example, a noise level of 88 dBA Lmax would be similar to typical Lmax levels measured throughout the project area near arterial roads and freeways, but sustained Leq levels of 85 dBA would be approximately 15 to 22 above daytime ambient conditions along key roadways (e.g., LT-1 and LT2, see Table 4.11-2), and up to 35 dBA above daytime ambient conditions in residential neighborhoods away from major roadways (e.g., ST-4; see Table 4.11-2). Typically, sustained construction noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA or higher would require the implementation of construction noise control practices such as staging area restrictions (e.g., sitting staging areas away from sensitive receptors), equipment controls (e.g., covered engines and use of electrical hook-ups instead of generators), and/or the installation of temporary noise barriers of sufficient height, size (length or width), and density to achieve targeted noise reductions.
Future development under the project would result in construction activities that could temporarily increase ambient noise levels by 15 dB or more. The City's existing Municipal Code requirements and General Plan policies would ensure construction activities do not occur during the most sensitive time periods (e.g., evening and nighttime periods) and require future discretionary projects to assess and minimize construction noise levels consistent with City goals, policies, and code standards.
Impact NOISE-2 –The project would not result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less Than Significant Impact) Implementation of the project could have the potential to change the existing amounts and types of land uses within the project area which could increase the number of residents and employees.
This possible increase in population and employment could lead to increased vehicle traffic on the local roadway system, which could result in traffic-related noise levels that pose land use compatibility issues or result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic-related noise levels throughout the project area. Project implementation could also involve increases in stationary noise and other sources of noise within the project area. These potential effects are evaluated below.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 464
Source: MD Acoustics 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.11-3 2040 Roadway Noise Contours
Levels in dB(A)
- < 45
45 50
50 55
55 60
- 60 65
- >= 65
Signs and symbols
11111111111 Road
Length scale 1:11S0
500 1000 2000 3000 •--===------====::::i reet
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 465
Source: MD Acoustics 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.11-4 2040 Plus Project Noise Contours
1056!l000
Levels in dB(A)
- < 45
45 50
50 - 55
55 - 60
60 - 65
>= 65
Signs and symbols
== Road
10566750 1056700) 10567250 10567500
Length scale 1:1150
lllllllli5i(0:::=::::10j0111 0---20i::O:::====i300~ 01
h
tl
8 h
i:'.l
cl
10567750
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 466
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-29 October 2022
Increases in Traffic and Rail Noise Levels
Although the project does not authorize any specific development project or increase existing vehicular traffic levels, the City contracted with a professional transportation engineering firm (WTrans) to conduct travel demand modeling associated with the proposed project land use changes (W-Trans, 2022; see Chapter 4.17, Transportation, and Appendix E). The travel demand modeling provides a sufficient level of detail to generally evaluate the potential future increases in trafficrelated noise levels associated with projected growth. Future 2040 Project traffic noise levels were computed using the same methodology (TNM methodology) and data sources used to calculate existing (Year 2019) and future (Year 2040) baseline traffic noise levels (see Section 4.13.2 and), except that 2040 Project traffic levels were obtained from the TIA prepared for the project and entered into the traffic model. See Figure 4.11-3 for 2040 Roadway Noise Contours and Figure
4.11-4 for 2040 Plus Project Noise Contours).
Table 4.11-12: 2040 Plus Project Transportation Noise Contour Distances (2040) Road / Segment
Predicted Ldn 50
Feet from Road
Centerline (dBA)(A)
Ldn Contour and Distance from Road
Centerline in Feet
75 70 65 60
Holly St
US-101 to Industrial Rd 71.2 66 208 657 2077
Industrial Rd to Old County Rd 66.9 24 77 243 770
Old County Rd to El Camino Real 66.9 24 77 243 768
El Camino Real
Harbor Blvd to Hull Dr 70.7 59 187 590 1867
Hull Dr to Holly St 69.2 42 131 416 1315
Holly St to San Carlos Ave 70.0 50 158 501 1585
San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 64.1 13 41 130 410
Cherry St to Arroyo Ave 63.9 12 38 122 385
Arroyo Ave to Brittan Ave 66.3 21 68 214 677
Brittan Ave to Howard Ave 67.4 27 86 272 860
Howard Ave to White Oak Way 66.9 24 77 245 773
White Oak Way to St Francis Way 66.8 24 75 238 752
St Francis Way to Whipple Ave 67.2 26 83 262 829
Laurel St
San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 62.0 8 25 79 251
Cherry St to Arroyo Ave 60.7 6 19 59 186
San Carlos Ave
El Camino Real to Laurel St 67.9 31 97 307 969
Laurel St to Walnut St 67.1 26 81 255 807
Walnut St to Elm St 66.8 24 76 239 756
Elm St to Cedar St 68.9 38 121 384 1214
Cedar St to Cordilleras Ave 64.9 15 49 153 485
Industrial Rd
Holly St to San Carlos Ave 65.7 18 58 184 581
San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 62.4 9 28 88 277
Cherry St to Terminal Way 62.7 9 29 92 292
Terminal Way to Bransten Rd 62.7 9 29 92 292
US-101
Harbor Blvd to Brittan Ave 83.3 2150 6800 21504 68002
Hull Dr
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 467
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-30 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.11-12: 2040 Plus Project Transportation Noise Contour Distances (2040) Road / Segment
Predicted Ldn 50
Feet from Road
Centerline (dBA)(A)
Ldn Contour and Distance from Road
Centerline in Feet
75 70 65 60
El Camino Real to Cedar St 58.7 4 12 37 119
Cherry St
El Camino Real to Cedar St 61.8 8 24 76 241
Arroyo Ave
El Camino Real to Cedar St 60.2 5 17 53 166
Laurel St to Elm St 51.0 1 2 6 20
Source: MD, 2022 (see Appendix E)
CNEL values are as estimated 50 feet from the road center, excepting US-101 (Ldn at 100 feet).
Table 4.11-13: Future (2040) and Future Plus Project (2040) Traffic Noise Levels Road / Segment
Future (2040)
Future Plus Project
(2040) Net Change
ADT Ldn(A) ADT Ldn(A) ADT Ldn
Holly St
US-101 to Industrial Rd 49,906 71.0 52,612 71.2 2,706 0.2 Industrial Rd to Old County Rd 27,236 66.3 30,931 66.9 3,695 0.6 Old County Rd to El Camino Real 27,831 66.4 30,856 66.9 3,025 0.5 El Camino Real
Harbor Blvd to Hull Dr 30,094 70.4 32,102 70.7 2,008 0.3 Hull Dr to Holly St 30,533 68.9 32,728 69.2 2,195 0.3
Holly St to San Carlos Ave 35,788 69.6 39,446 70.0 3,658 0.4 San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 13,932 63.7 15,530 64.1 1,598 0.4 Cherry St to Arroyo Ave 13,455 63.5 14,561 63.9 1,106 0.4 Arroyo Ave to Brittan Ave 23,889 66.0 25,625 66.3 1,736 0.3 Brittan Ave to Howard Ave 30,278 67.0 32,525 67.4 2,247 0.4 Howard Ave to White Oak Way 27,247 66.6 29,257 66.9 2,010 0.3 White Oak Way to St Francis Way 26,772 66.5 28,473 66.8 1,701 0.3 St Francis Way to Whipple Ave 29,095 66.9 31,350 67.2 2,255 0.3 Laurel St
San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 15,267 61.6 16,720 62.0 889 0.2 Cherry St to Arroyo Ave 11,887 60.5 12,413 60.7 889 0.2 San Carlos Ave
El Camino Real to Laurel St 22,429 67.4 24,744 67.9 2,315 0.5 Laurel St to Walnut St 19,810 66.9 20,613 67.1 803 0.2
Walnut St to Elm St 20,456 67.0 21,407 67.2 951 0.2
Elm St to Cedar St 20,487 68.6 21,546 68.9 1,059 0.3
Cedar St to Cordilleras Ave 17,661 64.6 18,637 64.9 976 0.3 Industrial Rd
Holly St to San Carlos Ave 22,086 65.6 22,325 65.7 239 0.1 San Carlos Ave to Cherry St 10,441 62.4 10,649 62.4 208 0.0 Cherry St to Terminal Way 11,001 62.6 11,201 62.7 200 0.1 Terminal Way to Bransten Rd 11,001 62.6 11,201 62.7 200 0.1 US-101
Harbor Blvd to Brittan Ave 257,675 83.3 257,515 83.3 -160 0.0 Hull Dr
El Camino Real to Cedar St 6,260 57.7 7,896 58.7 1,636 1.0 Cherry St
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 468
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-31 October 2022
Table 4.11-13: Future (2040) and Future Plus Project (2040) Traffic Noise Levels Road / Segment
Future (2040)
Future Plus Project
(2040) Net Change
ADT Ldn(A) ADT Ldn(A) ADT Ldn
El Camino Real to Cedar St 13,196 61.0 16,036 61.8 2,840 0.8 Arroyo Ave
El Camino Real to Laurel St 10,435 60.0 11,062 60.2 627 0.2 Laurel St to Elm St 1,437 51.3 1,320 51.0 -117 -0.3
Source: MD, 2022 (see Appendix D)
CNEL values are as estimated 50 feet from the road center except for US-101 (Ldn at 100 feet) Rail noise contours were not evaluated as a part of this analysis as rail noise levels are not expected to significantly increase as a result of the project.
ADT and traffic noise levels that would occur with implementation of the project. Refer to Appendix D for detailed transportation noise modeling results.
As shown in Table 4.13-14, the results of the traffic noise modeling indicate that traffic noise levels within the project area would continue to be highest along major travel corridors such as US 101, El Camino Real, Holly Street, and San Carlos Ave; however, the project would not substantially increase traffic volumes or traffic noise levels along these roadways. The traffic noise modeling indicates the project will increase traffic noise levels by no more than one decibel on every segment.
Pursuant to the State noise standards, California Building Code, Section 1207.4, new residential structures would be required to be constructed such that interior noise levels do not exceed an 45 dBA Ldn. Standard construction techniques and materials are commonly accepted to provide a minimum exterior to interior noise attenuation (i.e., reduction) of 22–25 dBA with all windows and doors closed (HUD 2009a and 2009b).2 These interior noise reductions would be adequate for some developments occurring under the project to meet interior noise standards. New residential and mixed-use developments particularly along segments with higher speed limits (40 mph or more) could require additional noise attenuation design features along roadways that are estimated to exceed 65 CNEL under existing and future conditions. Similarly, the 2030 Traffic and Railroad Noise Level Contours from the existing General Plan indicate that the project has proposed residential developments within the railway's 65 Ldn contour. Adherence to the State's mandatory noise standards would ensure residential and mixed-use structures within the project area meet or exceed the 45 dBA Ldn standard.
2 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Noise Guidebook and supplement (2009a, 2009b) includes information on noise attenuation provided by building materials and different construction techniques. As a reference, a standard exterior wall consisting of 5/8- inch siding, wall sheathing, fiberglass insulation, two by four wall studs on 16-inch centers, and 1/2-inch gypsum wall board with single strength windows provides approximately 35 dBs of attenuation between exterior and interior noise levels. This reduction may be slightly lower (2-3 dBs) for traffic noise due to the specific frequencies associated with traffic noise. Increasing window space may also decrease attenuation, with a reduction of 10 dBs possible if windows occupy 30% of the exterior wall façade.
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 469
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-32 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Increases in Stationary and Other Sources of Noise
Stationary and other sources of noise in the project area include, but are not limited to, landscape and building maintenance activities, stationary mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, HVAC units), garbage collection activities, commercial and industrial activities, and other stationary and area sources such as people's voices, amplified music, and public address systems.
Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short-term and intermittent.
Industrial uses may generate noise on a more continual basis due to the types of their activities.
The project would increase residential and commercial development within the project area and, in particular, allow mixed use development in which residential and commercial uses are integrated into a single development project. These types of developments tend to have higher noise levels associated with the mix of land uses contained within them. Future planned development could also result in new stationary and area sources as well as exposure of new sensitive land uses to existing stationary and area sources.
The City's existing General Plan includes goals and policies that minimize the impact of ambient and operational noise levels throughout the City. In addition, San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter
9.30 Noise Regulation) establishes the City's standards related to noise.
Thus, stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by the General Plan goals and policies, and the Municipal Code, which limit allowable noise levels at adjacent properties.
Therefore, future stationary noise sources would comply with City standards and would not expose people to a substantial permanent increase in noise levels.
Stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by the General Plan goals and policies, and the Municipal Code, which limits allowable noise levels at adjacent properties. Therefore, future operational noise would comply with City standards and would not expose people to a substantial permanent increase in noise levels from transportation or non-transportation noise sources.
Impact NOISE-3– The project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Less Than Significant Impact) Temporary Construction Vibration Levels
Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved.
Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, result in low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and at high levels can cause sleep disturbance in places where people normally sleep or annoyance in buildings that are primarily used for daytime functions and sleeping (e.g., a hospital). Ground vibration can also potentially damage the foundations and exteriors of existing structures even if it does not result in a negative human response. Pile drivers and other pieces of high-impact construction equipment
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 470
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-33 October 2022
are generally the primary cause of construction-related vibration impacts. The use of such equipment is generally limited to sites where there are extensive layers of very hard materials (e.g., compacted soils, bedrock) that must be loosened or penetrated to achieve grading and foundation design requirements. The need for such methods is usually determined through site-specific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface materials within the grading envelope, along with foundation design recommendations and the construction methods needed to safely permit development of a site.
Construction equipment and activities are categorized by the nature of the vibration they produce.
Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and pile-extraction equipment. Equipment or activities typical of transient (single-impact) or low-rate, repeated impact vibration include impact pile drivers, and crack-and-seat equipment. Pile driving and blasting activities produce the highest levels of ground vibration and can result in structural damage to existing buildings.
Since individual project-specific information is not available at this time, potential short-term construction-related vibration impacts can only be evaluated based on the typical construction activities associated with residential, commercial, and industrial development. Potential construction source vibration levels were developed based on methodologies, reference noise levels, and typical equipment usage and other operating factors documented and contained in the FHWA's Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA, 2006), FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2018), and Caltrans' Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, 2020). Reference levels are vibration emissions for specific equipment or activity types that are well-documented and for which their usage is common practice in the field of acoustics.
Future development as a result of the project would occur in primarily urban settings where land is already disturbed and, therefore, is not likely to require blasting, which is typically used to remove unwanted rock or earth. Standard construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers, trucks, jackhammers) generally does not cause vibration that could cause structural or cosmetic damage but may be felt by nearby receptors. Table 4.11-14 presents the typical types of equipment that could be used for future development activities in the project area.
Table 4.11-14: Ground-borne Vibration and Noise from Typical Construction Equipment
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) (A) Velocity Decibels (VdB) (B) 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 58 49 40
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008 79 70 61
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.028 0.013 83 74 65
Loaded truck 0.076 0.035 0.017 86 77 68
Auger Drill Rig 0.089 0.042 0.019 87 78 69
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 471
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-34 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.11-14: Ground-borne Vibration and Noise from Typical Construction Equipment
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) (A) Velocity Decibels (VdB) (B) 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.019 87 78 69
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.046 94 85 76
Impact Pile Driver
(upper range) 1.518 0.708 0.330 112 103 94
Impact Pile Driver
(typical) 0.644 0.300 0.140 104 95 86
Sonic Pile Driver
(upper range) 0.734 0.42 0.160 105 96 87
Sonic Pile Driver
(typical) 0.170 0.079 0.037 93 84 75
Sources: Caltrans 2013 and FTA 2018
(A) Estimated PPV calculated as: PPV(D)=PPV(ref)*(25/D)^1.1 where PPV(D)= Estimated PPV at distance; PPVref= Reference PPV at 25 ft; D= Distance from equipment to receiver; and n= ground attenuation rate (1.1 for dense compacted hard soils).
(B) Estimated Lv calculated as: Lv(D)=Lv(25 feet)-30Log(D/25) where Lv(D)= estimated velocity level in decibels at distance, Lv(25 feet)= RMS velocity amplitude at 25 ft; and D= distance from equipment to receiver.
As shown in Table 4.11-10, specific vibration levels associated with typical construction equipment are highly dependent on the type of equipment used. Vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance, such that even maximum impact pile driving activities would result in vibration levels below Caltrans' recommended 0.5 PPV threshold for transient vibration-induced damage in historic, older buildings at a distance 100 feet; all other activities would be below Caltrans' threshold for transient vibration-induced damage in historic, older buildings at a distance of 25 feet. For human responses, maximum impact pile driving activities would result in ground-borne vibration and noise levels below Caltrans' threshold for a distinctly perceptible response (0.24 PPV) and the FTA's vibration standard for infrequent events at residential lands (80 VdB) at a distance of approximately 150 feet and 300 feet, respectively. All other activities may be barely to distinctly perceptible when occurring within approximately 150 feet of sensitive land uses. This impact is considered less than significant.
Long-Term Ground-borne Vibration Levels
The proposed project could facilitate the construction of mixed-use and residential projects adjacent to the existing Caltrain railroad. With regards to vibration impacts on new development near railroads, human disturbance is the primary concern. It is extremely rare for vibration levels from trains passing to result in structural damage to buildings. In addition, buses and other transit vehicles are not anticipated to generate excessive vibration levels that would disturb sensitive receptors because these vehicles are traveling at lower speeds and do not generate substantial vibrations.
Typical construction activities may be barely to distinctly perceptible when occurring within approximately 150 feet of sensitive land uses. Most construction equipment does not operate in
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 472
Chapter 4.11 Noise
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.11-35 October 2022
the same location for prolonged periods of time. Therefore, even if construction equipment were to operate near a building where receptors may feel vibration, it would only be for a temporary amount of time and would not be considered excessive. This impact is considered less than significant.
Impact NOISE-4 – The project is located within two miles of the San Carlos Airport, but would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. (No Impact) The closest airport to the project area is the San Carlos Airport. The project area is not located in any noise contour zone associated with this airport and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Impact NOISE-5– The project would not cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to noise or vibration. (No Impact)
Project implementation would result in construction noise and vibration as individual development projects are constructed over time. Each individual development would be subject to City regulations and policies regarding construction noise and vibration (See Impact NOISE-1 and NOISE-3). These policies and measures establish the overall goal and intent of the City to protect residents from excessive construction noise and vibration, to require the appropriate evaluation of construction noise and vibration impacts at sensitive receptor locations, and to implement feasible construction noise and vibration control measures when development occurs near noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, construction noise would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative construction noise impact.
Once constructed, development projects would contribute to the potential permanent increases in noise levels evaluated under Impact NOISE-2. The proposed project would not generate significant increases in traffic noise levels on a cumulative basis. The project abides by the City's intent to establish clear and enforced noise regulations for all land uses, consider operational noise impacts during the development review process, and limit new development in noise-impacted areas unless the development includes mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration levels to acceptable levels. In addition, the proposed project would protect residents from excessive stationary noise sources and as new land uses must meet the San Carlos Municipal Code noise standards through evaluation and design considerations. Therefore, future operations would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative operational noise impact.
In general, ground-borne operational vibration impacts are site-specific and do not have the potential to combine with vibration impacts. No cumulative impact would occur. The proposed project would not result in a cumulative considerable contribution to cumulative noise and vibration impacts.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 473
Chapter 4.11 Noise
4.11-36 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
4.11.6 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, California. September 2013. _______. 2020. Traffic Census Program.
_______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, California. April 2020.
California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Sacramento, California. 2017.
Caltrain. 2022. San Carlos Station. Web. Accessed September 3, 2022. <https://www.caltrain.com/station/sancarlos>
San Carlos. 2010. General Plan Noise Element. 2009.
_______. 2022. San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 9.30 – Noise Control. September 2022.
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. "Construction Noise Handbook, Chapter 9 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges": Accessed online at:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cf m>
U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Washington, DC. September 2018.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009a.HUD Noise Guidebook.
Prepared by the Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. March 2009.
_______. 2009b. HUD Noise Guidebook, Chapter 4 Supplement: Sound Transmission Class Guidance. Prepared by the Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. March 2009.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 474
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.12-1 October 2022
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes the existing population, housing and employment characteristics of the project area. It includes a description of the regulatory framework and analyzes impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed Focused GPU. All other project components not specifically mentioned in the analysis would have no appreciable effect on population and housing.
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The project area, approximately eight square miles in size, includes a mix of urban and suburban uses. Residential land uses are the predominant land use in San Carlos, and account for more than half of the total land area. Mixed-use land uses total less than one percent. Commercial and light industrial land uses comprise 14 percent and public facilities and institutions makes up nine percent. Park and open space uses encompass 19 percent. Parking uses total 20 acres or less than one percent, while vacant land makes up three percent of the project area.
The following sections describes the existing population, housing and employment characteristics within the City. Unless otherwise noted, the majority of existing conditions information, included below, is taken from the proposed Housing Element Update.
Population
Between 2010 and 2020, the population of San Carlos grew approximately six percent, from 28,406 to 30,145 residents. This was a slower growth rate than the County of San Mateo, which experienced a 7.6 percent increase from 2010 to 2020. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) growth forecasts predict a steady increase in population through 2030. From 2020 to 2030, ABAG estimates that the City’s population will grow by 12.5 percent, while countywide population is expected to increase by 10.4 percent. However, both are forecast to grow at a slower rate between 2030 and 2040. Table 4.12-1 shows expected population growth within San Carlos and San Mateo County. The demographics and racial profile of the City is found in Table 4.12-2.
Table 4.12-1: Population and Projected Growth
Area 2010 2020 2030 2040
2010-2020
Change
2020-2030
Projected
Change
2030-2040
Projected
Change
San Carlos 28,406 30,145 33,915 35,250 5.8% 7.8% 3.9%
San Mateo
County 718,451 773,244 853,260 916,590 7.1% 10.4% 7.4%
Source: CA Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, ABAG Growth Forecasts (Plan Bay Area 2040).
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 475
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
4.12-2 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.12-2: Demographics and Racial Profile of the City Demographic Profile 2018
Age
0-19 7,754 (26%)
20-44 8,522 (28%)
45-64 9,146 (30%)
65+ 4,658 (16%)
Median Age 42.2
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic) 22,612 (75%)
Hispanic 2,579 (9%)
Black 205 (0.7%)
Asian/Pacific Islander 4,992 (17%)
Other 466 (1.5%)
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010, 2018 5-Year Estimates
Housing
In 2020, the Department of Finance reported 12,385 housing units in San Carlos. According to the City’s building permit records, between 2010 and 2019 the local housing stock has increased by 550 units. Most of the City’s housing stock is made up of single-family attached and detached homes (72 percent) with the remaining 28 percent multi-family units. Census data indicates that
0.2 percent of owner units and 3.1 percent of rental units are vacant.
The San Carlos median home price in October 2021, based on information provided by CoreLogic, was $2,320,000. This median home price was $795,000 higher than the median home price in San Mateo County at large.
More than a quarter (28 percent) of San Carlos households are renters. While there are limited sources that provide median or average rents for a specific geography, the Census estimates the median gross rent between 2016 and 2020 in San Carlos was $2,423 per month.
Employment
Residents in San Carlos are primarily employed in professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services (24 percent), and educational services, health care and social assistance (21 percent). The average salary for professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services jobs is $126,060 a year while those in and educational services, and health care and social assistance make, on average, $66,359.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 476
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.12-3 October 2022
According to the 2017 Economic Census prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, most (92 percent) employed residents work outside of San Carlos. In addition to the estimated 985 residents who live and work in San Carlos, over 13,000 workers commute into San Carlos for their jobs.
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
State
Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6).
State law requires each city and county to prepare and maintain a current housing element as part of the community's General Plan in order to attain a statewide goal of providing "decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family." Under state law, housing elements must be updated every eight years and reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
Regional
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with ABAG, determine a projected housing need for the Bay Area. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is projected to be 441,176 new housing units for the 2023- 2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among municipalities, distributing to each a RHNA divided into income levels. The City of San Carlos has an estimated RHNA of 2,390 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period.
The RHNA allocation distribution is as shown in Table 4.12-3.
Table 4.12-3: City of San Carlos Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Category Number of Housing
Units
Percent of Total
Allocation
Very Low (0-50% of County AMI) 650 27%
Low (> 50-80% of County AMI) 370 15%
Moderate (>80-120% of County AMI) 380 16%
Above Moderate (120% of County AMI) 990 41%
Total 2,390
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four key elements — housing, the economy, transportation and the environment — and identifies a path to make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. With respect to housing, the Plan projects that
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 477
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
4.12-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
the Bay Area will need to add more than 441,000 new affordable housing units by 2050 to meet the region’s housing needs. The following housing strategies were identified in Plan Bay Area 2050:
H1. Further strengthen renter protections beyond State law. Building upon recent tenant protection laws, limit annual rent increases to the rate of inflation, while exempting units less than 10 years old.
H2. Preserve existing affordable housing. Acquire homes currently affordable to low and middle-income residents for preservation as permanently deed-restricted affordable housing.
H3. Allow a greater mix of housing densities and types in Growth Geographies. Allow a variety of housing types at a range of densities to be built in Priority Development Areas, select Transit-Rich Areas and select High-Resource Areas.
H4. Build adequate affordable housing to ensure homes for all. Construct enough deedrestricted affordable homes to fill the existing gap in housing for the unhoused community and to meet the needs of low-income households.
H5. Integrate affordable housing into all major housing projects. Require a baseline of 10- 20% of new market-rate housing developments of five units or more to be affordable to lowincome households.
H6. Transform aging malls and office parks into neighborhoods. Permit and promote the reuse of shopping malls and office parks with limited commercial viability as neighborhoods with housing for residents at all income levels.
H7. Provide targeted mortgage, rental and small business assistance to Equity Priority Communities. Provide assistance to low-income communities and communities of color to address the legacy of exclusion and predatory lending, while helping to grow locally owned businesses.
H8. Accelerate reuse of public and community-owned land for mixed-income housing and essential services. Help public agencies, community land trusts and other non-profit landowners accelerate the development of mixed-income affordable housing.
City of San Carlos General Plan
The 2009 General Plan includes the following policies related to housing:
Land Use Element
Policy LU-1.2: Encourage development of higher density housing and support additional job growth within the TOD corridor while being sensitive to surrounding uses.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 478
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.12-5 October 2022
Policy LU-2.7: Encourage residential and other uses in the Downtown Laurel Street area that contribute to the Downtown’s vibrancy and activity.
Policy LU-9.20: Conversion of existing rental housing stock to condominiums shall be permitted only when it can be shown that:
• The vacancy rate in rental units in the city is in excess of 5 percent. • Adequate provisions are made for the protection of tenants including relocation assistance. 2015-2023 Housing Element
Policy HOU-1.1: Established Residential Neighborhoods. Preserve and improve the existing character and livability of established residential neighborhoods through neighborhood improvements and rehabilitation programs.
Policy HOU-1.2: Lower Income Residents Displacement. Minimize potential displacement of existing lower income residents due to increasing housing prices and rents.
Policy HOU-3.1: Quality Design. Promote high quality multi-family housing and mixed-use projects in the Downtown area and along El Camino Real.
Policy HOU-4.1: Approach to Secondary Dwelling Units. Encourage second units as a form of affordable housing in compliance with the Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance as an important way to provide affordable housing in combination with primary residential uses on low-density lots.
Policy HOU-4.2: Incentives Provided for Secondary Dwelling Units. Encourage local agencies, districts and utility providers to reduce hook-up or other fees to facilitate the development of second units.
Policy HOU-4.3: Secondary Dwelling Unit Design and Approval. Encourage the development of well-designed new secondary dwelling units in existing neighborhoods by implementing objective standards for the approval of a second unit and continuing to evaluate the Zoning Ordinance to create opportunities for new second units.
Policy HOU-5.1: Housing Choices. Encourage a diversity of high-quality housing in various types, locations and price ranges for present and future residents.
Policy HOU-5.2: Workforce Housing. Establish programs to provide direct financial and technical assistance to facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing.
Policy HOU-5.3: Home Ownership. Encourage home ownership opportunities for households of all income levels.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 479
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
4.12-6 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Policy HOU-5.4: Rental and Owner Housing Mix. Encourage a mixture of rental and ownership properties throughout the city.
Policy HOU-5.5: Income Distribution of Lower Income Affordable Housing. Provide an adequate number of affordable housing units to extremely low, very low and low-income households, in proportion to the existing or projected need in the community as identified in the housing needs section of the Housing Element.
Policy HOU-5.6: Housing Preferences. Provide that housing policies and programs give preferences, where allowable by law, to households with members who live or work in San Carlos or school and fire districts that serve San Carlos.
Policy HOU-5.7: Funding for Lower Income Housing. Encourage the development of housing units for lower income housing by identifying and undertaking actions to obtain or assist in obtaining funding to address the needs of lower income households.
Policy HOU-6.1: Development Standards. Ensure applicants and developers are aware of the City’s flexible zoning standards intended to encourage the production of new affordable housing.
Policy HOU-6.2: Constraint Removal. Regularly evaluate City regulations, ordinances and development fees to identify constraints to the development of affordable housing in San Carlos.
Policy HOU-6.3: General Plan Build-Out. Utilize the build-out analysis in the General Plan Land Use Element and provisions in CEQA guidelines for affordable housing projects to provide a streamlined environmental review process for qualified affordable housing projects.
Policy HOU-7.2: Single-Room Occupancy and Efficiency Apartments. Support the inclusion of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units and efficiency apartments in multi-family and mixed use areas through standards established in the Zoning Ordinance.
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
Chapter 18.16 of the San Carlos Municipal Code establishes the City’s affordable housing programs which were recently revised in August 2022. Relevant portions of the ordinance are as follows:
18.16.030 Below market rate housing requirements.
A. Residential Development. For all residential ownership developments of five (5) or more dwelling units, at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units shall be below market rate units restricted for sale to and occupancy by low-income households unless the residential development is exempt under Section 18.16.040. For all residential rental developments of seven (7) or more dwelling units, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total units shall be below market rate units
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 480
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.12-7 October 2022
restricted for rent to and occupancy by low and very low-income households unless the residential development is exempt under Section 18.16.040. The number and type of below market rate units required for a particular residential development will be determined at first approval of the residential development in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.16.060. If a change in the residential development design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of below market rate units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project.
1. Residential Ownership Development. At least twenty percent (20%) of the total units in a residential ownership development shall be below market rate units affordable to low-income households unless an alternative is approved as described in Section 18.16.070.
2. Residential Rental Development. At least fifteen percent (15%) of the total units in a residential rental development shall be below market rate units, of which ten percent (10%) shall be affordable to very low-income households and five percent (5%) affordable to low-income households unless an alternative is approved as described in Section 18.16.070. Projects may alternatively, but are not required to, designate fifteen percent (15%) of the units as affordable to very low-income households in order to maximize the benefits allowed by the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915.
B. Calculation. In determining the number of whole below market rate units required, calculations shall be based on the number of dwelling units in the residential development, excluding any units above the otherwise maximum allowable density that are approved pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915 et seq. Any decimal fraction less than one-half (0.5) shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of one-half (0.5) or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
C. In Lieu Fee. Under the circumstances specified in this subsection, the below market rate housing requirements in subsection A of this section may be satisfied by the payment of a fee to the City in lieu of constructing the below market rate units within the residential development.
1. For a residential ownership development of one (1) dwelling unit, or for an addition of one thousand (1,000) square feet or more to an existing dwelling unit that may be sold individually, the builder shall pay an in lieu fee or construct an accessory dwelling unit consistent with Section
18.23.210, Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units.
2. For a residential development that creates one (1) additional lot, or two (2) to six (6) rental dwelling units and/or lots, or two (2) to four (4) ownership dwelling units and/or lots, or for a residential development that triggers a decimal fraction of less than one-half (0.5), the builder shall pay an in lieu fee for the fractional unit requirement or build a below market rate unit affordable to a low-income household.
3. The in lieu fee may be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council or may be determined for a specific residential development through the preparation of an affordability gap analysis that will determine the difference between the affordable sales price or rent and the
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 481
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
4.12-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
fair market value for the unit, but in no event shall the in lieu fee exceed the cost of mitigating the impact of market rate units in a residential development on the need for affordable housing in the City.
4. Nothing in this chapter or Chapter 18.17 shall deem or be used to deem the in lieu fee authorized pursuant to this subsection C as an ad hoc exaction or as a mandated fee required as a condition to developing property. Any in lieu fee adopted by the City Council is a menu option that may serve as an alternative to the on-site below market rate housing requirements set forth in this chapter.
D. Below Market Rate Units Eligible for State Density Bonus. If a residential development receives a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, any density bonus BMR unit and any dedication of property that made the residential development eligible for the density bonus that also satisfies the requirements of this chapter shall be counted as below market rate units pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 1583 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1566 (Exh. B (part)), 2020:
Ord. 1550 § 2 (part), 2019: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.040)
4.12.3 Thresholds of Significance
Per the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the GPU would have a significant impact related to population and housing if it would:
a) Induce substantial population unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential impacts related to population and housing that would result from implementation of the project. The section begins with the thresholds of significance, followed by the impact analysis and identification of mitigation measures, if required.
Impact POP-1: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). (Less Than Significant Impact) Housing Element Update
Induced population growth may result in impacts if a project induces growth in an area not otherwise planned for growth or in an area that cannot adequately accommodate such growth.
Growth may be induced directly by proposals for new residential uses or indirectly by proposals for new roadways, other infrastructure, or employment opportunities.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 482
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.12-9 October 2022
Implementation of the development projection included in the Housing Element Update would result in the construction of 3,576 units. This amount of development includes the assigned RHNA allocation (2,735 units) as well as an additional 841 units.
The proposed project includes both a rezoning and General Plan text and map amendments to allow for an increased in development within the City. While the Housing Element Update encourages the development of additional housing with the City, the vast majority of new housing would be undertaken by private development. Additionally, it is unrealistic to assume that all inventory sites within the City would be developed at their maximum development potential.
Given this, however, the potential development of 3,576 units was evaluated within this EIR.
Using a median household size of 2.57 persons, which was identified in the Housing Element Update, full development of the Housing Element Update would result in a population increase of 9,240 residents. In addition to the unlikely scenario that all inventory sites would be developed to the maximum extent possible, other factors would likely reduce the potential population increase.
Additionally, increasing density (units per acre) typically reduces unit size (average number of bedrooms) which can lead to less people per household. One example is that many of the new units, such as ADUs or studio apartments, would generally accommodate one or two residents, which is less than the medial household size of 2.57 people.
Further, the Housing Element Update is intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA share determined by ABAG for the 2023-2031 planning period. As such, the population growth associated with the Housing Element Update would not be unplanned as the document includes the identification of inventory sites for future housing development. The population growth would also be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, a regional plan intended to guide the regional population growth anticipated by 2050, and the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. This impact would be considered less than significant impact.
Environmental Safety and Public Services Element
The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains goals, policies, and implementation programs to reduce the risks associated with environmental hazards. The proposed goals, policies, and programs focus on building the resilience of the community and the built environment against hazards, including geologic and seismic hazards, flooding, wildfire, poor air quality and climate change effects, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards from the San Carlos Airport. Implementation of the Environmental Safety and Public Services Element would not induce unplanned population growth. The potential impact would be considered less than significant.
Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 483
Chapter 4.12 Population and Housing
4.12-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Housing Element Update
Some of the housing sites identified in the Housing Element Update currently include residential uses. It is possible that development associated with implementation of the Housing Element could result in displacement of existing residents. However, redevelopment of the sites with existing housing units in most cases results in an increase in on-site housing.
Additionally, the Housing Element Update does include the following policy to preserve housing units:
Policy HOU-1.2: Lower Income Residents Displacement. Minimize potential displacement of existing lower income residents due to increasing housing prices and rents.
Although existing housing units could be displaced as part of a property’s redevelopment, displaced units would likely be replaced by higher-density residential development. In addition, the City recently approved a Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance in August 2022 which would result in a net increase of deed restricted affordable housing units. Implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the net increase of units within the City and would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of population or housing. This would be considered a less than significant impact.
Environmental Safety and Public Services Element
The proposed Environmental Safety and Public Services Element contains goals, policies, and implementation programs to reduce the risks associated with environmental hazards. The proposed goals, policies, and programs focus on building the resilience of the community and the built environment against hazards, including geologic and seismic hazards, flooding, wildfire, poor air quality and climate change effects, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards from the San Carlos Airport. The Environmental Safety and Public Services Element Update would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.
4.12.5 References
Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021.
Plan Bay Area 2050, May 26.
City of San Carlos, 2021. Existing Conditions Atlas, San Carlos 2040, January 6.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 484
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.13-1 October 2022
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This EIR section addresses the project’s potential impacts on public services and recreation and suggests mitigation measures, if necessary.
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
The following describes the existing public services and recreation setting within the project area.
Fire Protection
Fire protection services in San Carlos are provided under contract with the Redwood City Fire Department (Fire Department), which provides fire protection, hazardous materials response, disaster preparedness, and emergency medical response. The Fire Department includes seven fire stations housing seven engines, one truck, one battalion chief and over 90 staff members including firefighters, firefighter/paramedics, captains, battalion chiefs, fire prevention staff, training staff, and administrative staff. There are eight firefighter/paramedics on duty (one on each engine and one on the tiller-truck) with a total of 27 firefighter/paramedics working for the department; all paramedics are cross trained as firefighters.
Two fire stations are located within the City of San Carlos. Fire Station 13 is located at 525 Laurel Street in San Carlos. Station 13 is staffed with a captain, a firefighter, and a firefighter/paramedic and houses Engine 13 and Reserve Engine 113. Station 16, located at 1280 Alameda De Las Pulgas, is staffed with a captain, a firefighter and a firefighter/paramedic and houses Engine 16.
The Fire Department and the City are currently in the process of development plans to demolish and rebuild Fire Station 16.
Figure 4.13-1 shows the areas within one or two miles of a fire station. As shown in the Figure, most of the City is within two miles of a fire station. The northwestern most point of San Carlos, adjacent to the Devonshire Area, is beyond the one or two-mile driving distance fire service area of all fire stations.
Police Protection
San Carlos law enforcement services are provided under contract with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, located at 600 Elm Street. The Sheriff’s Office has over 800 sworn and civilian personnel who provide various law enforcement services to San Mateo County, including contract law enforcement services for San Carlos. Within the San Carlos Bureau, under the direction of the Chief of Police (Sheriff's Captain), police services consists of 30 employees of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office and four communications officers from the San Mateo County Communications Office. In addition, the full resources of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office support all aspects of police operations in San Carlos. The employees include one records
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 485
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.13-1 Fire Station Service Area
Fire Service Areas
Within One-Mile Driving Distance
Within Two-Mile Driving Distance
G Fire Station
Base Map Features
- • - · City of San Carlos Boundary
Sphere of Influence
---- Major Streets
Streets
------c:Jt--- Caltra in Railroad and Stations
Surrounding Jurisdictions
Parks and Open Space
Waterbodies
San Carlos Airport
August2020
Sources:UnitedStatesCensusBurNu,2019.
OtyofSanCa1fos,CountyofSanMateo,U1banFootprint,2020.
BELMONT
SAN MATEO COUNTY
¼ ½
Bair
Island
Smith Slough
y
Mile
1 8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 486
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.13-3 October 2022
technician, one management analyst, 10 deputy sheriffs, two K9 deputies, two motor deputies, five sergeants, one captain and eight community services officer.1 There are two shifts a day and each shift has one sergeant and three deputies. The City is divided into three beats but deputies respond where needed. A Community Service Officer (CSO) are deployed during the day from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days a week.
The goal of Police Services is to successfully prevent and suppress crime, provide timely and effective services to the community, and coordinate important community outreach activities to enhance safety and security. Major services include: Dedicated Traffic Deputies; School Resource Officers; Sheriff's Activities League/Community Policing Unit; Sheriff’s Volunteers in Policing (SVIPs); Dispatch; and numerous other Sheriff’s Resources.
The following objectives were identified by the Sheriff’s Department:
• Objective #1: Respond to emergency and non-emergency calls, initiate activity, write reports, and reserve deputies. These level of service measures are tracked to maintain or increase our efficiency, enhance our level of customer service, and achieve customer service goals.
• Objective #2: Conduct interviews, manage crime scene, collect evidence, and conduct research. These measures are derived from the thoroughness of information gathering, follow-up investigation, and end results that are also monitored for comparison to other agencies throughout California.
• Objective #3: San Mateo County alerts, Press Releases, School Resource Officers, special events, Town Hall meetings, open houses, Neighborhood Watch, and satisfaction surveys.
These measures are based on answers to questions posed to individuals who have had varying forms of contact with our staff. The responses to these questions and free form comments received are shared with staff to enhance overall customer service model. • Objective #4: Community Services Officer (CSO), traffic and parking enforcement, enforcement citations, warnings, traffic direction, directed enforcement, and traffic surveys. With the emerging trend of communities requesting residential parking permit programs, citations and warnings are requested for enforcement. Deputies participating in continuous directed traffic enforcement activities make police presence highly visible and is a contributing factor to the reduction in traffic accidents. • Objective #5: Ensure safe traffic flow, assist commerce and eliminate them to help with parking availability. Business and residential communities share many parking enforcement concerns. This is another tool that is used to alleviate these issues. 1 San Mateo County Sheriff Department. 2022. Email communication from Kristina Bell, Police Chief for the City of San Carlos.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 487
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
4.13-4 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR September 2022
Figure 4.13-2 shows the Sheriff’s Office Service Area. As shown in the graphic, most of the City is within two miles of the San Carlos Police Bureau. Like the fire service areas, the portion of San Carlos north and west of the Devonshire Area is located beyond the one or two-mile driving distance to the Sheriff’s Office service area.
Schools
Project area residents are served by three public elementary school districts: San Carlos School District, Belmont-Redwood Shores School District, and Redwood City School District. Sequoia Union High School District serves all public high school students in the project area. Information about the school districts and schools serving students within the project area is shown in Table
4.13-1 and elementary school district boundaries are shown in Figure 4.13-3.
Enrollment for the school districts, over the last five school years, is included in Table 4.13-2. As shown in the table, the elementary schools districts have all experienced declining enrollment over the last five years, while Sequoia Union High School District enrollment has remained stable.
Libraries
The San Carlos branch of the San Mateo County Library System is located at 610 Elm Street, adjacent to San Carlos City Hall. In addition to book circulation, the library offers child, adult and family programming, as well as computer workstations that are available for public use. The library also has study rooms, virtual meeting spaces, and various types of equipment available for reservation.
As described in the San Mateo County Library System Annual Report, the San Carlos library is one of thirteen branches of the San Mateo County Library System. The library system has a service population of 283,997 residents and over 75 percent of that population has a library card. In 2021, over 1.5 million items materials were circulated, in addition to 1.1 million digital downloads.
Funding for the library comes from the County Library Joint Powers Authority, which is comprised of the cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Carlos, and Woodside, as well as unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. San Mateo County provides library staffing and materials, and the individual cities are responsible for the buildings and maintenance.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Park and recreation facilities in and around San Carlos include City parks, county and regional parks, open space and trails. Park and recreation facilities within the City are owned and operated by the San Carlos Parks and Recreation Department. Figure 4.13-4 shows the location of parks and open space in the project area. Existing City parks are listed in Table 4.13-3.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 488
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.13-2 Sheriff Office Service Area
Sheriff Service Areas
- Within One-Mile Driving Distance
Within Two-Mile Driving Distance
0 Sheriff Station
Base Map Features
- - - · City of San Carlos Boundary
Sphere of Influence
---- Major Streets
Streets
---£t-- Caltra in Ra ilroad and Stations
Surrounding Jurisdictions
Pa rks and Open Space
Waterbodies
San Carlos Airport
August2020
Sou!Ces:UnitcdStatcs(cnsusBureau,2019.
GtyofSanCarlos,CountyofSanMatl'o,U1banFootprint,2020.
BELMONT
Edgewood Park and
Natural Preserve
SAN MATEO COUNTY
,"\, ·,
IOI •,
~'1l,,
'
/~--: l
/' I ~ • I J::
¼
San Carlos I J
Airport 1
\
\
\
)
Bair
Island
Smith Slough
y
Mile
1 8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 489
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.13-3 Elementary School District Boundaries
Elementary School Districts
Belmont-Redwood Shores
Redwood City
San Carlos
Schools (K-8)
Base Map Features
- - - · City of San Ca rlos Boundary
Sphere of Influence
---- Major Streets
Streets
~ Caltra in Ra ilroad and Stations
Surrounding Jurisdictions
Pa rks and Open Space
Waterbodies
Sa n Carlos Airport
kigust2020
Souices:FEMA,2016.UnitedStatesCensusBu,eau,2019.(ityof
SanCa1los, CountyofSan .Mateo, Urb.in Footprin~ 2020.
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Bair
Island
Smith Slough
0 ____ ,.. ___________ Mile
0 ¼ ½ 1
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 490
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.13-7 October 2022
Table 4.13-1: School Districts and Schools Serving Residents Within the Project Area District and School Grades
2021-2022
Enrollment
Total District
Enrollment (2021-
2022)
San Carlos School District 3,003
Arroyo School 4-5 279
Arundel School K-3 353
Brittan Acres School K-3 321
Central Middle School 6-8 416
Heather School K-3 266
Mariposa School 4-5 304
San Carlos Charter Learning Center K-8 370
Tierra Linda Middle School 6-8 445
White Oaks School K-3 244
Belmont-Redwood Shores School District 3,967
Central Elementary K-5 436
Cipriani Elementary K-5 463
Fox Elementary K-5 423
Redwood Shore Elementary K-5 358
Nesbit Elementary K-8 596
Sandpiper Elementary K-8 575
Ralston Middle 6-8 1,113
Redwood City School District 7,669
Clifford Elementary K-8 658
McKinley Institute of Technology 6-8 287
North Star Academy 3-8 511
Orion Alternative K-5 386
Sequoia Union High School District 10,032
Sequoia High School 9-12 1,945
Redwood High School 9-12 218
Carlmont High School 9-12 2,302
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest Home, Enrollment Report, 2021-2022.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 491
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
4.13-8 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR September 2022
Table 4.13-2 School District Enrollment between 2017-2022 School District
District Enrollment (Students)
2017-
2018
2018-
2019
2019-
2020
2020-
2021
2021-
2022
Difference between
2017-2022
San Carlos 3,549 3,445 3,405 3,265 3,003 -546
Belmont-Redwood
Shores
4,324 4,308 4,314 4,152 3,967 -357
Redwood City 8,803 8,725 8,530 8,086 7,669 -1,134
Sequoia Union 10,021 10,246 10,238 10,327 10,032 +11
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest Home, Enrollment Report, 2021-2022.
Recreational Programs
A variety of programs for youth and adults are organized through the Parks and Recreation Department. The Department runs the San Carlos Youth Center at 1001 Chestnut Street, at the edge of Burton Park, which is open to pre-teens and young teens on weekdays from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on school breaks from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. In 2021 the City offered 112 sport camps and 165 sport classes serving 1,288 youth and 120 adult participants.
Open Space
San Carlos residents have access to a variety of open space areas in and around the city. These open space areas provide passive recreation facilities, including trails, views, natural vegetation, wildlife, and environmental education facilities. Open space in San Carlos includes all land designated as open space in the General Plan, including Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park. Open space land controlled by the City is mostly unimproved or in its natural state. Other open space areas around the city are owned and operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), San Mateo County and the State Department of Fish and Game.
MROSD manages 26 open space preserves totaling over 65,000 acres. The three closest MROSD preserves are Pulgas Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods and Teague Hill, with Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve located within San Carlos’ SOI. San Mateo County manages five regional parks.
The largest is the 467-acre Edgewood Preserve, located immediately south of San Carlos, across Edgewood Road. The State Department of Fish and Game runs Bair Island, a 3,000-acre Ecological Preserve within the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, located adjacent to San Carlos in the wetlands of San Francisco Bay.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 492
Source: MIG, 2022
Focused General Plan Update
Figure 4.13-4 Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities Elementary School Districts
Belmont-Redwood Shores
Redwood City
San Carlos
Schools (K-8)
Base Map Features
- - - · City of San Ca rlos Boundary
Sphere of Influence
---- Major Streets
Streets
~ Caltra in Ra ilroad and Stations
Surrounding Jurisdictions
Pa rks and Open Space
Waterbodies
Sa n Carlos Airport
kigust2020
Souices:FEMA,2016.UnitedStatesCensusBu,eau,2019.(ityof
SanCa1los, CountyofSan .Mateo, Urb.in Footprin~ 2020.
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Bair
Island
Smith Slough
0 ____ ,.. ___________ Mile
0 ¼ ½ 1
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 493
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
4.13-10 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Table 4.13-3 City Parks
Park Name Acreage Description
Arguello Park 21.0 Arguello Park is the largest and most diverse of the developed parks, with a natural grass turf field, picnic areas, running trail and unmarked hiking trails.
Big Canyon Park 16.0 Big Canyon Park is a rustic open space area. The over 2-mile trail in the park is rugged, hilly and narrow with views of the city and the East Bay.
Burton Park 10.3
Burton Park includes Madsen baseball and softball diamond (used by adult softball leagues, little leagues, and other baseball teams), a large soccer field, three lighted tennis courts, two full basketball courts, three bocce courts, outdoor stage, two corn hole boards, two children’s playground areas, park benches, picnic areas, and a turfed play area. Recent improvements include new and renovated restroom facilities (2018) and new lighting, and a scoreboard were recently installed at Madsen Field (softball). New lighting was installed at Flanagan Field in August 2022. City events hosted at Burton Park include the Music in the Park concert series, community movie nights, Hometown Days and San Carlos Pride: Pride in the Park at Burton Park to celebrate diversity and the LGBTQ community.
Cedar Park 0.6 Cedar Park has a small turf area, children’s play area, asphalt basketball court/multi-use section, park benches, picnic table and barbecue pit.
Chilton Park 1.6
Chilton Park was renovated in 2020 with improved trails, gathering area, kids play area and improved stair entrance from Bayview. There are views of the canyon and surrounding area from the western boundary and views of San Carlos and the East Bay from the middle of the property. Children enjoy climbing on a major rock outcropping located on the slope leading down to Bay View. Recent park improvements include benches, play area equipment, walkway/stair improvements, new water fountain, fencing, and signage.
City Hall Park 1.3 City Hall Park is centrally located in the downtown area. In 2016, City Hall Park was renovated to provide an off-leash dog park for the community. In 2017, local youth built and installed three agility play pieces for the dogs.
Crestview Park 7.0
Crestview Park is frequently used by soccer players, neighboring families, and jogging and walking enthusiasts. The park facilities include a soccer field, basketball courts, sport court, children’s playground area, and a jogging/walking path. The park was recently renovated to update restrooms.
Eaton Park 57.6 Eaton Park is a natural open space with meandering trails, natural vegetation and varied wildlife. It is undeveloped except for a trail, which winds its way up the hillside toward Loma Road. A fire access road winds its way to the top of the park as well.
Frank D.
Harrington Park
(formerly Laurel
Street Park)
0.3 The park is utilized by shoppers as a resting spot and by customers of adjacent restaurants. The park is used annually for a portion of the Art and Wine Festival, informal concerts, and recently installed chess tables.
Heather Dog
Exercise Area 1.5 The park is used by dog owners and their pets. There is also a trail in the southern part of the park with a view through thecanyon.
Highlands Park 11.2
The complex is used for year-round athletic events, including baseball, soccer, softball, tennis and sports camps, as well as for neighborhood recreational activities including a children’s play area. Highlands Park was renovated in 2018 with new restrooms with increased capacities, expanded play area, new climbing play features, new ADA compliant path to the Stadium Field and improved entry into the park. Tennis courts were resurfaced in 2022 and pickleball striping was added to two of the five courts.
Stadium field lighting was added in 2022.
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 494
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.13-11 October 2022
Table 4.13-3 City Parks
Park Name Acreage Description
Hillcrest Circle
Park 0.2 The park contains a children's play area, half-court basketball court, picnic bench, barbecue pit and drinking fountain. The park attracts neighborhood youth that frequent the play areas, the basketball court and other “free play” sections of the asphalt.
Laureola Park 2.6
This neighborhood park gets a variety of users throughout the year. Little League baseball uses the field area in the spring, and the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) makes use of the entire turf area in the fall. In addition, residents utilize the turf, basketball court and the children's play area regularly.
North Crestview
Park 4.3
This open space park provides expansive views across San Carlos to the East Bay Hills and west to the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The park contains a short trail leading up the slope to viewpoints; however, no trail amenities exist except for waste receptacles at the park entrances. A Master Plan was completed in 2018 and identified passive use improvements to the park such as improved trails, a Service Dog Memorial, benches, meadow, picnic tables and new trees.
San Carlos
Avenue
Neighborhood
Park
0.3 The park primarily attracts neighborhood children and adult chaperones. It currently contains a swing set, park benches, barbecue pit, small turf area, drinking fountain and climbing apparatus.
Vista Park 3.8 Vista Park, landscaped with native vegetation, has walking paths, park benches, trash receptacles, and picnic tables. The park has views to the east. It is presently used by local resident walkers, pet owners and passive users.
Total 139.6
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 495
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
4.13-12 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
Trails
Arguello, Highlands, Big Canyon, Eaton, and Heather Dog Area are the five city parks with hiking trails within the city limit. Among these parks, the City owns and maintains 10.66 miles of recreational trails. The longest trail within San Carlos’ trail system is the Eaton-Big Canyon Trail, which runs through both Eaton and Big Canyon Parks and connects the two parks together. The City does not maintain equestrian facilities or mountain biking trails at this time. Information on pathways through the city for bicycling and jogging are discussed in Circulation and Transportation section of this EIR.
Planned Facilities
The Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities plans for new parks and improvements to existing parks, which were expected to be implemented over a 12-year period. The Master Plan identifies improvements for each existing park in San Carlos, including park buildings, open space and recreational facilities. The acquisition of new parkland has been considered for east of El Camino Real, Devonshire Canyon (in the San Carlos SOI), and the civic center area. Additionally, an off-leash dog exercise area, a skate park, and a sports complex have been considered.
The City also has plans to expand the system of public trails. In February 2007, the City Council approved a Trails Connections Plan that identified 14 possible new connections to existing trails in San Carlos and surrounding areas. Of the 14 connections, six connect trails within San Carlos and the remaining eight are regional connections. The first priority trails, as identified in the Trails Connection Plan, are scheduled to be implemented before the second priority trails. In addition to implementing the Trails Connections Plan, the City’s planned improvements to the trail system include extending existing trails and improving soil erosion and trail drainage issues.
In 2012 the City Council approved a Hillside Trails Plan that identified 1.62 miles of new trails within Big Canyon Park, Eaton Park, and Devonshire Canyon. The Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park trail improvements were completed and add a combined 0.86 miles to the City’s trail system.
Parks Deficiencies
In order to meet its parks provision standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents, the City must acquire land to expand existing parks and to develop new City parks. In 2020, the City had 62.5 acres of existing traditional developed parkland.
Based on the estimated 2020 population of 30,145 people, the City currently provides 2.07 acres of developed/active parks for every 1,000 residents. In order to meet the required 2.5 acres of developed/active parks per 1,000 residents, the City would have to provide an additional 12.9 acres of parks. Although most residential areas are located within walking distance of a local park, the City does not fully meet its walkability policy standard. The White Oaks and Eaton neighborhoods do not contain any public parks and, consequently, the southern portion of the White Oaks
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 496
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.13-13 October 2022
neighborhood and the southern and eastern portions of the Eaton neighborhood are not within a ½-mile of a public park. Therefore, the City would need additional park acres in these neighborhoods to fulfill its service standard.
The City does not currently meet its standard of one mile of hiking trail per 1,000 residents. To do so, the City would need a total of 30 miles of trails (at the City’s current population). Additional trail miles would be provided with implementation of the Council-approved Trail Connections Plan and identified during development of the upcoming Open Space Management Plan.
According to the City’s Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities, the City will develop the Open Space Management Plan between 2008 and 2012. The Open Space Management Plan was listed as an unfunded item in the 2009-10 CIP budget request as the City’s previous economic forecast precluded it from funding at the time (San Carlos 2009).
Currently there is no update on the Master Plan for parks and an Open Space Management plan is not yet created.
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Standardized Emergency Management System and National Incident Management System (SEMS)
According to the State’s SEMS, local agencies have primary authority regarding rescue and treatment of casualties and making decisions regarding protective actions for the community.
When a major incident occurs, the first few moments are critical in terms of reducing loss of life and property. First responders must be sufficiently trained to understand the nature and the gravity of the event to minimize the confusion that inevitably follows catastrophic situations. This onscene authority rests with the local emergency services organization and the incident commander.
Additional information regarding the City’s SEMS program can be found in Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Waste.
State
California Building Code
The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) became effective January 1, 2020, including Part 9 of Title 24, the California Fire Code. Section 701A.3.2 of the CBC requires that new buildings located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone within State Responsibility Areas, any Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area designated by the enforcing agency for which an application for a building permit is submitted, comply with all sections of the chapter.
This code establishes State fire regulations, including regulations for building standards (also set forth in the CBC), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 497
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
4.13-14 San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR October 2022
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Fire Code
The City of San Carlos has adopted the 2019 California Fire Code, with amendments to address specific local conditions and needs. The local amendments include, but are not limited to, codifying requirements for car stackers and car puzzler systems, defining what constitutes a high rise structure, and outlining prohibitions regarding “safe and sane” fireworks. Additionally, the proposed ordinance includes changes to the compliance requirements for the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, changes to fire hydrant specifications, and changes to emergency responder radio coverage system requirements.
Education Code Section 17620
The Code allows school districts to assess fees on new residential and commercial construction within their respective boundaries. These fees can be collected without special city or county approval, to fund the construction of new school facilities necessitated by the impact of residential and commercial development activity. In addition, these fees can also be used to fund the reconstruction of school facilities or reopening schools to accommodate development-related enrollment growth. Fees are collected immediately prior to the time of the issuance of a building permit by the City or the County.
Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act (1998)
California Government Code Section 65995 sets base limits and additional provisions for school districts to levy development impact fees and to help fund expanded facilities to house new pupils that may be generated by the development project. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA.
These fees may be adjusted by the school district.
Quimby Act
Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477), cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. A 1982 amendment (AB 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or park land and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. A 2013 amendment (AB1359) allows cities and counties to use developer paid Quimby Act fees to provide parks in neighborhoods other than the one in which the developer’s subdivision is located. Previously, a city or county could only use the fees to provide parks that served the developer’s proposed subdivision. AB 1359 lifted this limitation if certain requirements are met including:
8.b
January 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 498
Chapter 4.13 Public Services and Recreation
San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft EIR 4.13-15 October 2022
1. The neighborhood where the city or county is proposing to use the fees to provide parks must have fewer than three acres of park area per 1,000 members.
2. The neighborhood where the proposed subdivision is located must have at least three acres of park area or more per 1,000 members.
3. The city or county must hold a public hearing before using the fees in another neighborhood.
4. The city or county must find it reasonably foreseeable that the new subdivision’s residents will use the park facilities in the other neighborhood.