7.7 Rehabilitation or Reconstruction
of Frontage Pavement
7.9 Parking and Curb
Management District
7.2 Flooding and Sea Level Rise
7.8 Parking Benefit District
7.11 7.12
7.13 Funding and Financing
Implementation Actions
7.10 Community Benefits
7.3 Stormwater Treatment
7.4 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
7.5 Domestic Water Infrastructure
7.6 Dry Utility Infrastructure
7.1 Implementation Overview
The Implementation Chapter outlines the key steps required to realize the plan’s vision. City staff will use the standards, recommendations, and actions detailed in the following pages as a strategic blueprint for updating policies, identifying responsible departments for implementation oversight, and determining appropriate funding sources
Civil Infrastructure Improvement
This section outlines the range of civil utility
infrastructure upgrades needed to support the
District over time. These include wet utilities such
as storm drainage, flooding and sea level rise
mitigation, stormwater treatment, and domestic
water infrastructure, as well as dry utilities like
telecommunications and pavement reconstruction.
Parking Districts
This section introduces two NEASP-specific
parking entities: a Parking Benefit District and a
Parking and Curb Management District. These
entities will support the management of parking
supply within the district, facilitate coordination
with property owners, and oversee the allocation
of funds to enhance multimodal transportation
options.
Community Benefits Program
This section summarizes the City’s goals and
objectives for delivering community-serving
amenities, along with the mechanisms by which
these amenities can be provided through future
development.
Funding and Financing
This section outlines potential funding sources
and financing mechanisms to support the full
implementation of the Plan’s vision. It includes
guidance on forming partnerships and securing
contributions from developers, property owners,
City resources, and external sources.
List of Implementation Actions
The chapter concludes with a comprehensive list
of implementation actions, organized around the
three major components of the Specific Plan:
Land Use and Urban Form; Mobility and Parking;
and Environmental Resilience. Each action is
assigned a timeline, categorized as either shortterm or long-term.
This page is intentionally blank.
189 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.2 Storm Drain Infrastructure
BACKGROUND STANDARDS
Surface water in the NEASP area generally
trends towards the north and northeast where
it is captured and conveyed through a system
of catch basins and storm drain pipes in Quarry
Road, Bragato Road, Taylor Way, and Industrial
Road. Water is then conveyed into drainage
ditches on the north side of Holly Street and
the south side of US Highway 101. These
drainage ditches convey water to the right-hand
shoulder of southbound 101, where a series of
underground storm drain pipes collect the water
and convey it beneath Highway 101 and into
Phelps Slough. Phelps Slough then drains to a
retention pond in Redwood Shores before it is
pumped into Steinberger Slough which drains to
the San Francisco Bay.
The 2014 Industrial Road Drainage Study
(2014 IRDS) analyzes the City of San Carlos’s
existing storm drain system in the Industrial Road
neighborhood. The study analyzes a 10-year
level storm event to gauge the performance of
the existing system and identify segments of the
drainage system that do not provide adequate
capacity. Proposed system improvements include
upsizing existing pipes, adding additional piping,
and removing sediment and vegetation from
choked channels.
The City of San Carlos 2017 Storm Drain
Master Plan (2017 SDMP) is the most
recent study of the local storm drain system in
the Northeast Area and identifies portions of
the storm drain system that are currently under
capacity. The capacity analysis is based on a
10-year and 100-year design storm. Portions
of storm drain mains in Quarry Road, Bragato
Road, and Industrial Road were identified in the
2017 SDMP as being undersized and in need
of potential upgrades in the future in order to
convey the design storm and avoid potential
flooding. Additional improvements to the system
would include adding additional storm drain
infrastructure as well as removing debris and
vegetation from pipes and channels.
The 2017 SDMP storm drain upgrades identified
in Figure 112 are listed as “Tier 2” Capital
Improvement Projects.
Tier 2 Capital Improvement Projects indicate
portions of the storm drain system that are under
capacity, but the flooding that results from the
undersized pipes does not cause significant
flooding. The 2017 SDMP notes that Tier 2
improvements would only be upsized or improved
if the system was being modified for other
reasons.
7.2.1 Tier 2 Improvements
To improve drainage of the Northeast Area,
Tier 2 improvements shall be implemented in
conjunction with build-out of the plan area.
Identified in the background section, Tier 2
Capital Improvement Projects indicate portions of
the storm drain system that are under capacity,
but the flooding that results from the undersized
pipes does not cause significant flooding.
The 2017 SDMP does not indicate pipe sizes for
the Tier 2 Capital Improvement Projects. Unless
otherwise indicated in Figure 112 proposed
pipe sizes for replacement or parallel storm
drain pipes are based on hydraulic modeling
performed by Schaaf & Wheeler during 2025
CEQA effort.
7.2.2 Individual Development
City of San Carlos Public Works Department
shall determine on a case by case basis if
an individual project will be responsible for
constructing an identified capital improvement
project in the vicinity, or if a storm drain mitigation fee is more appropriate.
If it is determined that a project is responsible,
Projects which drain to the undersized storm
drain pipes shall construct new storm drains or
pay a fee for their fair share of the proposed
improvements.
When a project is developed and there is
no storm drain main serving that site or the
new green infrastructure implemented by
the developments, a new public storm drain
main shall be extended to the project site
and along the length of the project frontage.
Implementation of the public storm drain
extension shall be the responsibility of the
project applicant.
7.2.3 Site Hydrology
Future redevelopment shall mirror existing
drainage conditions. The peak flow from
individual developments to the storm drain
system shall be decreased by low impact design,
green infrastructure, and detention measures.
As part of an individual development application,
a project-specific hydrology and hydraulic
analysis shall be prepared to demonstrate that
peak stormwater flow is reduced compared
to pre-development conditions at the point of
connection to the existing storm drain system.
191 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.2 Figure 115 Storm Drain Infrastructure
TO 24”
UPSIZE EX SD
MAIN TO 36”
UPSIZE
EX SD
MAIN TO
30”
193 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
0 400 800 Feet
Existing Creek/Open Ditch Channel
Existing Storm Drain
Direction of Flow
Proposed Public Storm Drain Main
Proposed Green Stormwater
Infrastructure
08/02/2024
08/02/2024
7.3 Flooding and Sea Level Rise
BACKGROUND STANDARDS GUIDELINES
The Northeast Area periodically experiences
flooding during large storm events. The areas
within the Northeast Area which experience
flooding the most are near Quarry Road, due to
Belmont Creek overtopping, as well as isolated
areas along Industrial Road, specifically near
Taylor Road. Flooding in the area is generally
due to overtopping of Belmont Creek caused by
channel deficiencies and backwater conditions,
deficient capacity of existing local storm drains,
and blockages due to debris and leaves. Flooding
from Belmont Creek has been previously
analyzed in the following reports:
• Belmont Creek Watershed Study, prepared
by WRECO, dated September 2014
• Belmont Creek Watershed Management
Plan, prepared by Michael Baker
International., dated August 2019
• Twin Pines Park Detention Basin Study,
prepared by Wood Rodgers, dated January
2023
The 2014 Belmont Creek Watershed Study
(2014 BCWS) was prepared to determine
feasible flood control alternatives for Belmont
Creek that would reduce flooding at a private
property located on Industrial Road. The study
identifies Belmont Creek as a source of flooding
for the NEASP area and proposes a new parallel
bypass along Harbor Boulevard to reduce
overtopping of Belmont Creek and subsequent
flooding during a 10-year storm event.
The 2019 Belmont Creek Watershed
Management Plan (2019 BCWMP) studied
flooding from Belmont Creek and proposed a
number of potential improvements that could
be implemented to address the current flooding
conditions. These improvements included
upstream detention facilities, as well as a box
culvert bypass within Harbor Boulevard, parallel
to Belmont Creek.
The 2023 Twin Pines Park Detention Basin
Study (2023 TPPDBS) was prepared for the
City of Belmont to support design of a detention
basin project along Belmont Creek within Twin
Pines Park. The study noted that Lower Belmont
Creek is susceptible to accumulation of sediment
which is transported from upstream portions
of the watershed and deposited in the lower
reaches of the creek. Build-up of sediment
further reduces channel capacity by reducing the
cross section. The proposed detention project in
Twin Pines Park will address flooding in Quarry
Road for the 2-year storm. It will also reduce
sediment that is transported to the lower reaches
of Belmont Creek.
The study notes that the detention project
and the construction of a 10’x4’ reinforced
concrete box storm drain bypass within Harbor
Boulevard are needed to address flooding for
the 10-year storm event. With implementation
of the two projects, flood depths within the area
surrounding Belmont creek are predicted to be
mostly 1 foot or less during the 100-year storm
event.
7.3.1 Building Protection Measures
Future development projects shall anticipate
implementing measures to protect new buildings
from flooding and reduce impact on existing
drainage infrastructure. In addition to the existing
pipe deficiency, the flooding is also caused
by the fact that the Northeast Area is partially
within a 100-year special flood hazard zone.
All development shall adhere to Section 6.1:
District-Wide Development Standards.
City of San Carlos staff shall determine on a
case by case basis if an individual project should
utilize the variance process to accommodate
proposed finished floor elevations that have been
elevated to provide flood resilience.
7.3.2 Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis
Projects located within the floodplain shall
perform a hydrology and hydraulic analysis
to verify that proposed improvements will not
adversely affect the floodplain or exacerbate
flooding of other properties.
7.3.3 OneShoreline
Applicants should collaborate with OneShoreline,
which provides voluntary planning guidance and
design recommendations for tide-affected areas
such as the NEASP to account for climate-driven
flooding, sea level rise, and groundwater rise.
195 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.4 Stormwater Treatment
BACKGROUND
Redevelopment within the NEASP area is
subject to the Municipal Regional Stormwater
Permit (MRP). The third reissuance of the
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, or MRP
3.0, has been adopted by the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. MRP
3.0 includes significant changes and additional
stormwater treatment requirements for Provision
C.3.b. MRP 3.0 and its new requirements went
into effect July 1, 2023.
Under MRP 3.0, parcel-based development or
redevelopment is considered a Regulated Project
if it will create or replace 5,000 square feet (sf)
or more of impervious area. This includes any
impervious surface, sidewalk, or street frontage
that is created or replaced in the public right of
way as part of a project. The 5,000 sf threshold
also applies to new roads, sidewalks, and bike
lanes.
For redevelopment projects, the “50% Rule”
applies as noted in the San Mateo County C.3
Regulated Projects Guide. Projects that alter
or replace less than 50 percent of existing
impervious surface need to treat stormwater
runoff only from the portion of the site that
is redeveloped. Projects that alter or replace
50 percent or more of the existing impervious
surface are required to treat runoff from the
entire site.
It is likely that all horizontal and vertical
development projects within the NEASP area
will meet the Regulated Project criteria and be
required to comply with MRP Provision C.3.
requirements. Future issuances of the MRP
will supercede MRP 3.0 and may introduce
additional requirements.
STANDARDS
7.4.1 Stormwater Treatment
Projects shall implement stormwater treatment
measures that collect and treat stormwater
runoff from all onsite impervious areas prior to
discharge into the City storm drain system.
If a Regulated Project creates or replaces less
than 50% of the impervious surface within an
existing road or public right of way, stormwater
runoff from that portion of the road must be
included in the treatment system design. If
runoff from that portion of the road cannot be
separated from runoff from the rest of the road,
the runoff from the entire surface draining onto
the reconstructed portion must be treated.
If a project disturbs 50% or more of the existing
roadway, the entire road surface shall be
included in the treatment system design. For
most major development projects, it is expected
that stormwater treatment will need to be
designed and built to collect and treat runoff
from the public roadway along the project’s
frontage, extending to the crown of the street.
Projects shall be subject to the Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)
As a 20-year plan, projects shall comply with
future issuances of the MRP, if and/or when
MRP 3.0 is updated.
7.4.2 Design Methods
Traditional stormwater treatment methods
include stormwater gardens and flowthrough planters. Bioretention is a low-impact development (LID) treatment measure that
is designed to receive runoff from nearby
impervious surfaces or buildings, and allow for
stormwater evapotranspiration and filtration
through an engineered soil mix.
Other treatment measures may include cisterns
and re-use facilities. In addition, landscape areas
can be designed to retain run-off from adjacent
sidewalk areas.
Following the C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, a
self-retaining landscape area shall be depressed
3-inches below surrounding walkways and able
to retain the first inch of rainfall. The landscape
zone can accommodate a maximum ratio of two
parts impervious for every one-part pervious area.
197 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.5 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
Local wastewater is collected and conveyed
to sanitary sewer mains in Industrial Road. All
wastewater is conveyed to the Silicon Valley
Clean Water (SVCW) San Carlos Pump Station,
located on the other side of US Highway 101
from the Northeast Area. From there, wastewater
is pumped to the Silicon Valley Clean Water
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in
Redwood Shores.
7.5.1 Sewer Line Improvements
The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (SSMP)
prepared by RMC, dated January 2013, identifies
sewer lines within the Northeast Area that shall
be repaired or replaced. These include:
• A portion of sewer main along Industrial
Road, needs localized repairs.
• A portion of sewer main along Quarry Road
needs localized repairs.
• A portion of sewer main along Old County
Road needs localized repairs.
• A portion of sewer main along Quarry Road
needs replacement.
As part of the City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
(SSMP) update, analysis is being prepared to
analyze the capacity of the existing sanitary
sewer system under full build-out conditions for
the Northeast Area Specific Plan.
Development projects that discharge to
undersized sanitary sewer mains shall be
required to upsize those sanitary sewer mains as
noted in the SSMP.
STANDARDS
199 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.5 Figure 116 Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
201 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
0 400 800 Feet
08/02/2024
Existing Creek/Open DitchChannel
Existing Sanitary Sewer Main
Direction of Flow
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main
08/02/2024
7.6 Domestic Water Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
Water service is currently provided in the area
primarily by the Mid-Peninsula Water District
(MPWD). A small portion of the area near Old
County Road and Bragato Road is serviced
by the California Water Service Company
(CalWater). The Northeast Area is currently
served by water mains in Old County Road,
Quarry Road, Bragato Road, Taylor Way and
Industrial Road.
Development within the Northeast Area will
increase water demand. The proposed domestic
water demands are being studied as part of a
water supply assessment prepared by MPWD
in conjunction with the CEQA analysis for the
NEASP. Extension of recycled water to the
Northeast Area could be considered to offset
increased water demand.
The network of piping within NEASP will need
to be evaluated for adequacy on a project by
project basis. It is possible that some of the
existing water mains are not able to provide
sufficient flow and pressure to meet required fire
demands for new construction. Depending on
the actual building heights, locations, densities,
and construction types, water mains may need
to be replaced and upsized to meet fire flow
requirements.
7.6.1 Fire Flow Requirements
Fire flow requirements shall be identified
for each development site based on their
construction types and building square footage.
If the fire flow demand exceeds the supply
from the existing water system, the applicant
may be required to perform additional capacity
studies and upsize water mains as part of public
improvements for their projects, which could
extend beyond their immediate project frontage.
Applicants for individual development projects
shall coordinate with the Redwood City Fire
Department and MPWD during planning
approvals to determine if the existing water
system can deliver the required fire flows, or if
water system improvements are required to meet
the project’s specific fire water demands.
STANDARDS GUIDELINES
7.6.2 Sustainable Water Systems
To offset the future increased water demand,
projects should consider sustainable water use
options. Development projects are encouraged to
utilize on-site alternative water sources, such as
graywater re-use systems, rainwater harvesting
and re-use, or blackwater treatment and re-use
systems.
7.6.3 Recycled Water Systems
Given the proximity of the Northeast Area to the
City of Redwood City’s recycled water system
in Redwood Shores, the City of San Carlos
may consider implementing a recycled water
distribution system within the Northeast to offset
water demand and usage.
Further discussion with City staff and MPWD
is required to evaluate feasibility of connection
to the City of Redwood City’s Recycled Water
system and extending a pipeline to the Northeast
Area.
If recycled water is available or planned for
the area at the time when the City is reviewing
development applications, the applicant may
be required to use recycled water for site
and building uses such as irrigation and toilet
flushing. Individual project developments are
encouraged to utilize onsite alternative water
sources, regardless of whether recycled water
infrastructure is extended to the Northeast Area
in the future.
203 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.6 08/02/2024
Existing Creek/Open Ditch Channel
Existing Water Main
Proposed Water Main
Existing Fire Hydrant
08/02/2024
Figure 117 Domestic Water Infrastructure
205 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
0 400 800 Feet
7.7 Dry Utility
Infrastructure
7.7.1 Underground Overhead Utilities
Individual development projects shall be required
to underground any existing overhead utilities
along their project frontages.
7.7.2 PG&E and Telecom Coordination
Individual developments shall also coordinate
with PG&E and telecommunications providers
to determine if infrastructure upgrades are
required to support the specific needs of the
development.
STANDARDS 0 400 800 Feet
Existing Creek/Open DitchChannel
Existing Overhead Electric
Conductor
Existing Underground Electric
Conductor
Proposed Underground Electric
Conductor
08/02/2024
08/02/2024
08/02/2024
Figure 118 Dry Utility Infrastructure
207 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.8 Rehabilitation/
Reconstruction
of Frontage
Pavement
7.8.1 Pavement Improvements Applicants shall perform street pavement spot repairs and grind and overlay from the lip of
gutter to centerline of street for the length of
the project’s frontage. Any damages to existing
roadway pavement caused by construction
activities shall be repaired. The City shall also have discretion to require additional repairs of existing pavement with a
full-depth pavement section.
STANDARDS 0 400 800 Feet
Figure 119 Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of
Frontage Pavement
209 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
Pavement Overlay/Pavement
Section Repair
New Pavement Section
7.9 Parking
Benefit
District
Strategy
BACKGROUND
A Parking Benefit District (PBD) is a
geographically-defined area in which a portion
of locally-collected parking revenue is reinvested
within the district to support parking and
transportation goals and initiatives.
PBDs establish a sharing agreement that defines
how parking revenue is shared between the PBD
for local investment and the City to fund citywide
programs. For example, a PBD may retain 51%
of net parking revenue (after accounting for
operating costs) that is collected within the
district, while the City uses the remaining 49%
to support citywide parking enforcement and
management efforts.
A PBD typically includes an oversight body
that sets priorities about how the local share of
revenue should be re-invested. The oversight
body also provides a platform for coordination
and communication between City staff, decisionmakers, and local stakeholders.
The permissible uses for PBD are typically
defined in City code. As a best practice, PBDs
increasingly allow a broad range of applications
for PBD funds that includes multimodal
improvements, streetscape improvements, and
TDM programs, rather restricting revenue use to
parking-specific investments.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Establishment of a Parking Benefit
District
The process for establishing a Parking Benefit
District may be initiated by either of the following
actions:
(a) An application may be submitted to
the City by a representative of a neighborhood
business or organization whose boundaries are
completely or partially located within the district;
or
(b) The City may, at their discretion, initiate
the process based on the observed mobility
needs and parking demand in the district.
Any application for establishing a Parking Benefit
District must include:
(a) The boundaries of the proposed district
identified by streets and static land features.
(b) A description and justification for
the proposed district, including other parking
management strategies and tools that have been
requested or already implemented.
(c) Evidence of support from other
community members including surveys or
testimonials from residents, employees, business
owners, or students within the district.
(d) An initial list of proposed improvement
projects, in priority order, to be funded by parking
revenue collected within the district, including a
rationale and desired outcome for each project.
After an application has been received and
reviewed or after the City has initiated the
process at their own discretion, the City shall
set a public hearing before the Planning and
Transportation Commission. The Director will
present the proposal for the Parking Benefit
District and make a recommendation to the
Commission. If the Commission accepts the
proposal for establishing a Parking Benefit
District, the City Council shall consider an
ordinance for the creation for the proposed
district no later than 60 days after the Planning
and Transportation Commission action.
PBD Revenue Allocation.
Annually, the costs of administering the Parking
Benefit District Program (including staff time
and professional services) and parking meter
operations costs shall be subtracted from the
total parking meter revenue generated within
the district prior to the calculation of the parking
district revenue allocation.
A percentage of the total parking meter
revenues, less the administrative and parking
meter operations costs generated within each
Parking Benefit District shall be allocated to that
Parking Benefit District on an annual basis. The
percentage shall be fifty-one (51%) each fiscal
year.
In addition to the 51% of revenue allocated to
the Parking Benefit District, the City may allocate
all or a portion of the remaining revenues to the
Parking Benefit District on a case-by-case basis.
Parking Benefit District revenues allocated to
each Parking Benefit District will be disbursed
pursuant to the annual adoption and approval of
a Prioritized Project List for each Parking Benefit
District, as described in Section XX.
Parking Benefit District Oversight and
Responsibilities
Each Parking Benefit District shall include an
oversight board consisting of residents, property
owners, community-based organizations,
business owners, and/or people who work within
the NEASP plan area.
The oversight board will convene regularly
and will be tasked with recommending to City
Council the priority expenditures of allocated
Parking Benefit District revenues. The oversight
board will develop and maintain through periodic
updates a Prioritized Project List that identifies
how revenues will be allocated. The oversight
board will review and, if needed, update the
Prioritized Project List at least once annually.
Use of Allocated Parking Benefit District
Funds
Parking Benefit District expenditures may
include, but are not limited to the following:
(a) Increasing the parking supply, e.g., lease,
purchase, or construction of additional on-street
or off-street parking accessible to vehicles.
(b) Parking-related services that are
generally available to all users, including valet
parking services.
(c) Managing the existing parking inventory,
including but not limited to parking evaluations
and data collection, reconfiguration of existing
on-street parking inventory and regulations,
residential permit parking programs, employee
parking programs, and parking enforcement.
(d) Publicly-accessible bicycle parking,
including but not limited to the construction
of and/or purchase and installation of secure
bicycle parking rooms, bicycle lockers, bicycle
cages, and bicycle racks.
(e) Providing parking and transportation
information in the form of wayfinding signage or
media, including digital formats.
(f) Providing funding for transit services
and/or community shuttles or circulator systems,
which are partially or entirely located within the
boundaries of the Parking Benefit District.
(g) Services or streetscape improvements
which provide safety for people who are walking
or biking within the district.
(h) Shared micromobility options, including
bike share or scooter share services.
(i) Otherwise enhancing mobility within
the district and facilitating the use of alternative
forms of transportation to reduce parking
demand.
211 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.10 Parking and Curb
Management District
BACKGROUND
Convenient and easily accessible parking,
especially on-street parking, is a limited and
valuable resource in the district. Today, on-street
parking in the NEASP is not effectively managed
or enforced, with many on-street spaces utilized
all day for vehicle storage.
Managing on-street spaces effectively will be
critical for supporting the parking, loading, and
mobility needs for all NEASP users. City staff
need the authority and flexibility to manage onstreet parking and other curbside activities in a way that is responsive to changes in demand and
performance.
The NEASP identifies a complete toolkit of
management tools and grant staff the necessary
authority to implement those tools as appropriate
and feasible over time. If priced parking is
implemented, parking rates should be set and
adjusted with the goal of achieving a target peak
occupancy rate of 85-90% (about 1-2 empty
spaces per block), which is considered a best
practice for on-street parking management. An
85-90% occupancy target balances the aim
of supporting consistent and efficient use of
parking while minimizing the time it takes for
people to find an available parking space at peak
times.
The curb management framework should
anticipate existing and new technologies, as well
as additional enforcement to ensure parking and
curb restrictions are effective.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Establishment of parking and curb
management district.
To support the complex and interrelated
demands for use of curbside space in the public
right-of-way, the City shall establish a Parking
and Curb Management district that is contiguous
with the boundary of the NEASP. The purpose of
the district is to provide a coordinated approach
for managing curbside space and designated
portions of the curb for certain uses.
Authority to designate and types of
curbside uses.
The Director of Public Works is hereby
authorized to designate and mark, by signage
and/or curb markings, the following rules and
restrictions governing the use of curbside space
within the NEASP area:
(a) Time-limited vehicle parking. This
use includes vehicle parking spaces that are
subject to maximum duration of stay restrictions.
The maximum duration of stay and hours of
enforcement will be determined by the Director
of Public Works and/or City staff.
(b) Priced or metered parking. This use
includes vehicle parking spaces that are subject
to user fees based on the duration of stay.
Parking rates and hours of enforcement will be
determined and established by the Director of
Public Works and/or City staff. At least once
per year and not more frequently than quarterly,
the Director of Public Works and/or City staff
will survey the average occupancy for each
parking block that has priced or metered parking
within the district. The occupancy rate will be
calculated as the average of the two (2) highest
consecutive hours of parking occupancy on two
(2) representative days, which include any nonholiday Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Based on the observed peak occupancy, the Director
of Public Works may adjust parking rates higher
or lower with the goal of achieving a target peak
occupancy of 85-90% per block face.
(c) Permit parking. This use includes vehicle
parking spaces that are subject to parking
restrictions based on any permit structure,
such as residential parking permits (RPP) or
employee parking permits. Permit pricing, length,
applicability, and eligibility will be determined by
the Director of Public Works and/or City staff.
(d) ADA parking. This use includes onstreet parking spaces that are reserved for the exclusive use of ADA parking permit holders.
(e) Passenger loading zone. This use
includes space that is reserved for short-term
vehicle parking to allow vehicle passengers to
enter or exit the vehicle. The maximum permitted
length of stay and any other applicable access
restrictions will be determined by the Director of
Public Works and/or City staff.
(f) Commercial loading zone. This use
includes curbside space that is reserved for
short-term and medium-term commercial
vehicle access for deliveries, services, or other
commercial loading/unloading activities. The
maximum permitted length of stay and any other
applicable access restrictions will be determined
by the Director of Public Works and/or City staff.
(g) Bicycle and micromobility parking. This
use includes curbside space that is reserved
for bicycle and micromobility storage, such as a
bicycle corral or a marked micromobility parking
zone.
(h) Electric vehicle charging. This use
includes curbside space that is reserved for
the exclusive use of electric vehicles for the
purposes of charging the vehicle. Time limits
and other restrictions may be applied to electric
vehicle charging spaces.
(i) Car share parking. This use includes
reserved on-street parking spaces for the
exclusive use of publicly-accessible car share
service, including publicly-owned and operated
services and/or services operated by private
companies.
(j) Parklets and curbside dining areas. This
use includes curbside space that is reserved for
non-vehicular uses and activities. Use of curbside
space for parklets and/or dining areas may be
subject to additional permitting and/or design
requirements.
Technology and wayfinding
As needed, implement appropriate technology
systems to manage, price, and enforce parking.
These could include:
(a) Pay-and-display kiosks and/or pay-byspace meters, including credit card and pay-byphone options. (b) License plate recognition (LPR) vehicles,
automated enforcement, and/or third party
enforcement services to streamline enforcement,
reduce administrative costs, and improve data
collection.
(c) Establish a universal branding and
signage program, and clearly communicate the
curbside regulations.
213 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.11 Community Benefits Program
Community benefits are investments or public
assets provided by a developer in exchange for
the right to build a project that exceeds base
development heights or floor-to-area ratios
(FAR) set by zoning standards. These benefits
could include affordable housing contributions,
open space, street improvements, trails,
financial contributions, or anything else that the
jurisdiction deems a community benefit.
Community benefit programs establish the
rules by which developers can offer community
benefits in exchange for additional development
square footage or density. Figure 117 provides
an illustration of how these programs work.
OVERVIEW
The following section summarizes the City’s goals and objectives for community-serving amenities, and the mechanisms by which these amenities can be delivered by future development in the Northeast Area.
Community Benefits Fee
The proposed community benefit fee will be
established by the City Council based on a
financial feasibility analysis used to establish
the monetary value of the bonus. This fee can
be changed by the City Council as necessary to
reflect changing real estate market conditions.
Developers paying a fee in exchange for bonus
density will be contributing to a community
benefits fund for the District. Fund use will be
directed by the City Council and can be used by
the City to pay for any Northeast Area priorities
identified in the initial community benefits
ordinance, such as street network and mobility
improvements, mobility hubs, open space, green
streets, or Belmont Creek improvements that are
not included in base development standards. The
funds can also be used outside of the Northeast
Area.
Negotiated Community Benefits
Agreement
Alternatively, developers can choose to negotiate
an agreement with the city for bonus density. As
a result of a negotiated agreement, the developer
would provide contributions that exceed base
development standards, environmental mitigation
measures, and impact fees. The developer could
implement these contributions as part of the
development project or contribute to an off-site
location that is providing a community benefit.
Community benefit options can be chosen from
a menu of community benefits—such as those
shown in Figure 118. The City can also change
menu options over time. As part of this process,
there will be a valuation study that evaluates the
the benefit being provided versus the value of
the bonus square footage.
The Northeast Area Specific Plan’s community
benefits program allows developers building
commercial projects to provide community
benefits in exchange for increases in height
and/or FAR. The District’s base FAR and height
standards are shown in Sections 4.12 and
4.13, respectively. Section 4.14 shows the
standards for bonus FAR and building height.
Under the community benefits program, there is
no limit on FAR but there are limits on maximum
height—as shown in Figure 88.
The Northeast Area’s Community Benefits
Program uses a combination of a fee-based
community benefits mechanism and a
negotiation-based approach. Developers have a
choice for which approach they would prefer to
use. This provides them with three options:
1. Pay a community benefit fee for each
additional square foot of building area above the
base height or FAR, whichever is greater;
2. Negotiate a community benefits
agreement with the City to account for excess
height or FAR (which could be included in a
Development Agreement); or
3. Negotiate for a portion of the bonus
square footage and then pay the fee for the
remainder.
Figure 121 Menu of Community Benefits
In districts or jurisdictions with community
benefit programs, the zoning standards establish
a “base” height, a base FAR, or both. Any
development proposal that does not exceed the
base height or FAR is not required to provide
community benefits.
Any proposal—such as Proposal B in Figure
117—which exceeds the base height or FAR,
can offer community benefits in exchange for
additional height or FAR, as long as the proposed
project does not exceed the “bonus” maximum
height. There is no maximum cap for FAR.
Figure 120 Illustration of Community Benefits Programs, Base Height, and Bonus Height
PROGRAM OPTIONS
215 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
Multi-Modal Street
Improvements
Belmont Creek
Restoration
Public Open Space
Affordable
Commercial Space
Industrial Business
Retention
Green
Infrastructure
Community
Facilities
7.11 Figure 122 Allowed Community Benefit Areas
0 400 800 Feet
No FAR Cap, Maximum Height - 155 Feet
No FAR Cap, Maximum Height - 100 Feet
Project Boundary
Bonus FAR and
Building Height
Provisions
217 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
7.12 Funding and Financing
OVERVIEW
Implementing the NEASP, especially delivering
the necessary infrastructure and suggested
facilities, will happen incrementally in conjunction
with when development projects are built.
Because the timing of this development is
uncertain, this discussion only addresses the
possible funding sources and resources the City
of San Carlos can use to ensure that the Plan’s
vision is fully executed. Actual funding decisions
will be made jointly by developers and the City,
likely with community input.
Funding for improvements will come from
a mixture of sources, including developer
contributions, property owner investments,
City Resources, and outside State, Federal, or
regional grants. These funding and financing
sources each present different opportunities and
have different types of limitations. This section
provides a summary of each funding source and
the projects or improvements to which it could be
applied.
Funding will be required to pay for two kinds
of expenditures: capital improvements, i.e.,
infrastructure or public facilities construction,
and ongoing operations and maintenance of
the infrastructure or facility. Generally, different
funding sources are used to pay for each
expenditure type. Developers can be expected
to pay for the capital improvements necessary
to support their projects. However, by law,
developers cannot be required to pay for any
capital improvements required to improve
existing infrastructure deficiencies. For example,
if a sewer main needs to be replaced due to age
or capacity constraints created by existing uses,
then the users, not a new developer, must pay
that cost.
In the NEASP area, some improvements will
need to be made to existing infrastructure
systems, even if no new development occurs.
These improvements will require significant
levels of investment, which would typically be
considered “capital improvements” in the City’s
budget. However, for purposes of this funding
discussion, these costs have been included as
operating and maintenance costs to distinguish
them from the capital improvements that will be
required to support new development.
This section describes the menu of funding
sources that the City can use to address
the District’s various infrastructure needs.
Many projects or improvements will require a
combination of multiple funding sources to cover
the costs of capital investment and ongoing
maintenance. New development provides the
potential to offset some of these costs through
increased taxes and fee revenue.
In addition to the funding sources described in
this section, some sources are covered in more
detail elsewhere in this chapter:
• The Northeast Area Parking Benefit District
is covered in Section 7.9
• The Northeast Area Community Benefits
Program is covered in Section 7.10
Funding and Financing Sources and
Mechanisms
Four sources of funding are available to the City
of San Carlos for the Northeast Area:
• Developer Contributions: pay for capital
improvements;
• Property Owners: pay for operations and
maintenance;
• City Resources: used for operations and
maintenance, including capital improvements
to existing infrastructure;
• Outside Sources: used for capital
improvements or other one time
expenditures.
Developer Contributions
Development Standards:
Each new development project will contribute
to the NEASP’s implementation by meeting
requirements regulating each project’s land
uses, height, density, bulk, parking requirements,
on-site circulation, on-site open space, street
frontage improvements, utilities, and other
requirements specified in the Specific Plan.
These standards are adopted in the City’s
zoning ordinance and must be satisfied in order
for a project to be granted approval. Based on
the requirements outlined in the Specific Plan,
development standards will be used to fund
domestic water mains, stormwater treatment, and
some Belmont Creek Improvements. In some
cases, developers may also contribute to the
creation of the new street, storm drain upgrades,
or sanitary sewer costs.
Potential Future Impact Fees:
Impact fees are one-time fees imposed on new
developments to pay for improvements and
facilities that either serve the new development
or reduce the impact of the project on the
existing community. Fee revenues cannot
be used to fund existing deficiencies in
infrastructure. Impact fees must be established
using a nexus study that specifies the
improvements the fee will be used to fund. This
means that the City’s current impact fees cannot
be applied to new specific plan infrastructure
without updating their nexus studies. However,
San Carlos could use impact fees to fund future
infrastructure investments with updates to
current parks, affordable housing, traffic, sewer
capacity, or childcare impact fees. Or choose to
establish fees unique to the Specific Plan Area
through a nexus study.
Community Benefits Fees and Negotiated
Community Benefits:
Community benefits programs provide
developers with the opportunity to receive
increased density or heigh in exchange for
paying additional fees or providing additional
amenities. Section 7.10 provides more detail on
this program.
Property Owners
Individual Property Owners:
For any new public improvement that is on
private property, it will be the responsibility
of the individual property owner to operate
and maintain this improvement. One example
of this is onsite stormwater management
infrastructure. Developers will be required to
include stormwater infrastructure as part of
development standards on any new projects, and
the long-term property owner will be required to
maintain this infrastructure. In addition, property
owners will be required to maintain any new
privately owned publicly accessible amenities,
such as pedestrian pathways, the Belmont
Creek Pathway, riparian vegetation at Belmont
creek, and any other privately-owned publicly
accessible space.
Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), also
known as a Mello-Roos District:
Private property owners could also pay for
improvements via a Community Facilities District
(CFD). CFDs create an additional tax levy on
properties in a district. These funds can be
used to pay for infrastructure improvements,
services, and/or maintenance within the same
district. Under California state law, this levy can
be calculated based on any type of reasonable
property characteristic, such as land square
footage, with the exception of property value.
The process for establishing a CFD could be
initiated by the City but would require a twothirds vote of property owners or two-thirds of registered voters in the district to approve
(whether the basis is voters or property owners
depends on the number of registered voters
present in the district at the time of formation.)
Funds can be used for a variety of infrastructurerelated purposes within the district. A key benefit of CFDs over other district-based funding
mechanisms is that they can be used for ongoing
infrastructure operations and maintenance in
addition to capital costs. For the Northeast Area,
fund uses could include street maintenance,
utility upgrades, or improvements such as parks,
green streets, or active mobility.
219 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
City Resources
General Fund:
General Fund revenues include property tax,
sales tax, business registrations, and charges
for services for parks and recreation and various
other sources. The City has more control over
how this money is used than any other funding
source. The General Fund can pay for any capital
improvement or operations and maintenance
expense on public property, making it an
extremely important funding source for Northeast
Area Specific Plan implementation.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is the City’s designated budget for all Public Works
projects. The CIP forecasts public capital
expenditure requirements for a five-year period
but is updated more frequently to reflect
changing needs and priorities. Funding for most
projects in the CIP comes from the General
Fund but could also be allocated from other
funds, such as the Wastewater Fund or Gas Tax
Fund. As part of the City’s budget process, the
Planning and Transportation Commission reviews
the CIP for general plan conformance and the
City Council adopts the CIP. Although the CIP
did not include any infrastructure projects in the
Northeast Area at the time of Plan adopting,
future projects could be incorporated into the
CIP as it is updated over time.
Parking Benefit District:
The Parking Benefit District establishes a formal
mechanism for re-investing parking revenue
generated in the District back into the District. This is explained in more detail in Section 7.8.
Outside Sources
Other Regional, State, and Federal Grants:
Various federal, state, and regional grant
programs periodically distribute funding for
public improvements. Grant programs are
typically highly competitive, so grant funds are an
unpredictable funding source. However, having
an adopted specific plan makes the District more
competitive for grant funding. Possible grant
sources could include the California Department
of Transportation, the California Strategic
Growth Council, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, and/or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The City will need to proactively track and target relevant grant programs to
identify appropriate grant opportunities.
This page is intentionally blank.
221 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
Table 25 summarizes how each of these
funding sources can be used for the capital
improvements identified in the Specific Plan.
Table 26 summarizes how funding sources
could be applied to operations and maintenance
expenses within the District.
FUNDING SOURCES AND USES
223 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS PROPERTY
OWNERS CITY FUNDING SOURCES OUTSIDE SOURCES
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
IMPACT FEES
COMMUNITY
BENEFIT FEE
NEGOTIATED
COMMUNITY
BENEFITS
AGREEMENTS
COMMUNITY
FACILITIES
DISTRICT*
GENERAL
FUND
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
PARKING BENEFIT
DISTRICT*
OTHER REGIONAL,
STATE AND
FEDERAL GRANTS
UTILITIES OR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT Onsite Stormwater Management X
Flooding and Sea Level Rise X
Sanitary Sewer X X X
Domestic Water Infrastructure X
Dry Utilities X
Shared Parking X X
Rehab or Reconstruction of Frontage Pavement X
New Street X X X X X
New Public Park X X X X X X
Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space X
Pedestrian Pathways X
Belmont Creek Greenway Pathway X
Belmont Creek Riparian Vegetation X
RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Street Network and Active Mobility X X X X
Mobility Hubs X X X X X
Parking Meters X
Green Streets X X X X X
BELMONT CREEK WATERSHED PLAN
Twin Pines Detention Project Pending Funding Determination Other Preliminary Alternatives Pending Funding Determination Table 24 Funding Sources for Capital Improvements *Community Facilities District and Parking Benefit District are not currently in place. 225 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
PROPERTY OWNERS CITY FUNDING SOURCES
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES
INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY
OWNERS
COMMUNITY
FACILITIES
DISTRICT*
GENERAL
FUND
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
PARKING
BENEFIT
DISTRICT*
EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Streets X X X
Storm Drains X X X
Sanitary Sewer X X X
Domestic Water X X X
REQUIRED GROWTH-RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Public Safety X X
Street X X
Onsite Stormwater Management X
Public Park X X X
Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Amenities:
Pedestrian Pathways X
Belmont Creek Greenway Pathway X
Belmont Creek Riparian Vegetation X
Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space X
RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Active Mobility Infrastructure X X X
Mobility Hubs X X X
Green Streets X X X
BELMONT CREEK WATERSHED PLAN
Twin Pines Detention Basin Pending Funding Determination Other Preliminary Alternatives Pending Funding Determination Table 25 Funding Sources for Operation and Maintenance *Community Facilities District and Parking Benefit District are not currently in place.
7.13 Implementation Actions
227 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION SHORT
TERM
LONG
TERM
DEPARTMENT
RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERSEEING ACTION
LAND USE AND URBAN
FORM
Refine and adopt the Production and Innovation (P-I), Mixed-Use Northeast 75 (MU-NE-75) and Mixed Use
Northeast 90 (MU-NE-90)
permitted land uses and
corresponding development
standards.
X
Planning / Community
Development
Update development
standards for all ground floor
uses including complete list
of active uses and small scale
manufacturing spaces on
parcels along Quarry Road.
X
Planning/ Community
Development
Finalize community benefits
program and negotiated
community benefits fee.
X
City Council / Community
Development
Coordinate with property
owners for site and location of
future public park.
X
Planning / Community
Development / Parks & Recreation
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION SHORT
TERM
LONG
TERM
DEPARTMENT
RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERSEEING ACTION
MOBILITY AND PARKING STANDARDS
Construct new north-south
street connection between
Quarry Road and Bragato
Road.
X
Public Works
Build Class I bike lane on Taykor Way and Old County Road and Class III bike boulevards on Quarry Road,
Bragato Road and the new
north-south street.
X
Public Works
Coordinate with property
owners to on the design and
construction of paseos.
X
Public Works
Coordinate with property
owners on the design and
construction of the Belmont
Creek multi-use path.
X
Public Works, Parks and
Recreation, Sustainability
Coordinate with property
owners to design and
construct a multi-modal
district mobility hub at the
intersection of F street
underpass and Old County Road.
X
Public Works, Sustainability
Design and construct 3 small
mobility hubs within the curb
zone at the district gateways.
X
Public Works, Sustainability
Establish a parking benefit
district.
X Planning / Community
Development
Develop a shared parking
program in coordination with
developers, property owners
and a TMA.
X
Planning / Community
Development
Refine and adopt Districtwide TDM Plan with TMA and
apply requirements on all new
building permits.
X
Planning/ / Community
Development
Table 26 List of Implementation Actions
The following list of implementation actions outlines the process for delivering the infrastructure and programs necessary to support the Northeast Area’s long-term growth.
Short Term Actions should be initiated
immediately upon adoption of the Northeast
Area Specific Plan. These include updating the
municipal zoning code to align with the Plan, and
coordinating with City departments, public utilities,
and property owners/developers to establish
a shared understanding of responsibilities for
utilities, roadways, and park improvements.
Long Term Actions should occur over time as
development proposals are submitted, outside
grant funding opportunities arise and growth
generates new needs.
229 Northeast Area Specific Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION SHORT
TERM
LONG
TERM
DEPARTMENT
RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERSEEING ACTION
Establish a parking and curb
management district.
X
Public Works
Design and construct a
signalised Intersection at the
intersection of Industrial Road
and Taylor Way.
X
Public Works
Design and construct
pedestrian crossings on
Industrial Road and Old
County Road.
X
Public Works
Conduct a streets masterplan
design effort.X
Community Development
ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE Adopt the sea level priority
zone and the creek front zone
as part of flood protection
strategy.
X
Planning / Community
Development
Coordinate with the City
of Belmont and property
owners on Belmont creek
improvements.
X
Public Works
Upgrade undersized storm
drains as part of tier 2 capital
improvement projects.
X
Public Works
Formulate hydrology and
hydraulic analysis benchmarks
and require LID as needed for
new development.
X
Public Works
Evaluate individual projects
for their share of fee or
responsibility of new capital
improvement projects.
X
Public Works / Engineering
Evaluate new developments in
relation to the SSMP update
and require sanitary sewer
upgrades as needed.
X
Public Works / Environmental Services
Evaluate new developments
for their fire flow demands
in coordination with MPWD/
Redwood City fire department
to identify if any water system
improvements are needed.
X
Public Works, Redwood
City Fire Department
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION SHORT
TERM
LONG
TERM
DEPARTMENT
RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVERSEEING ACTION
Coordinate with Redwood City
to evaluate the feasibility of
a recycled water distribution
system.
X
Public Works
Require new developments to
underground overhead utilities
and require coordination
with PG&E for infrastructure
upgrades.
X
Public Works
Require reconstruct or
rehabilitating of pavement on
new development frontage.
X
Public Works
Attachment 2:
Links to Previous Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes
Note: These links are clickable. If a printed copy of the staff reports and meetings minutes are requested, please contact [email protected].
Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session
September 18, 2023
See Item 8A Northeast Area Specific Plan Study Session- Consideration of Draft Concepts and Land Use Options
• Staff Report
• Meeting Minutes
City Council Study Session
September 25, 2023
See Item 9A Discuss and Provide Directions on the Northeast Area Specific Plan Draft Concepts and Land Use Options
• Staff Report
• Meeting Minutes
Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session
January 16, 2024
See Item 6A Northeast Area Specific Plan Study Session- Consideration of a Revised Draft Land Use Option, with Modifications to Proposed Streets and Open Space Concepts • Staff Report
• Meeting Minutes
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2024
See Item 9A Discuss the Northeast Area Specific Plan and Consider Endorsing the Revised Draft Land Use Option and Urban Design Framework
• Staff Report
• Meeting Minutes
Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session
April 2, 2025
See Item 7A Study Session for the Northeast Area Specific Plan Public Draft • Staff Report
• Meeting Minutes
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 486
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 & ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY
This document provides a summary of the third Community Workshop for the Northeast Area Specific Plan, held virtually via Zoom on Thursday, November 7, 2024. An Appendix is provided at the end of the document which includes the live poll responses from the Community Workshop, and the chat comments.
For questions, please contact the City’s Advance Planning Division at [email protected] PART 1: COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 | MEETING SUMMARY
Thursday, November 7, 6:30 - 8 pm
Virtual Meeting via ZOOM
Workshop Agenda
1. WELCOME/TEAM INTRODUCTIONS/PARTICIPANT POLL
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION BY TOPIC
a. Part 1: Project Refresher
b. Part 2: Overview of the Big Ideas in the Specific Plan i. Land Use and Urban Form + Q+A
ii. Mobility and Parking + Q+A
iii. Resilience + Q+A
3. NEXT STEPS
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 487
Participants
Members of the public: 49
City of San Carlos Team
● Al Savay, Community & Economic Development Director
● Sajuti Haque, Project Manager
● Lisa Porras, Advance Planning Manager
● Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner
● Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
● Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
● Laura Richstone, Senior Planner
● Hanieh Houshmandi, Senior Traffic Engineer
● David Talgo, Planning Technician
● Grace Le, City Engineer
● Linnet Kwok, Senior Administrative Clerk
● Deanna Skaggs, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
● Perkins&Will - Marc Asnis, Geeti Silwal, Dishaddra Poddar, Sharvari Raje ● Plan to Place - Dave Javid, Quentin Freeman
● Nelson\Nygaard - Alex Mercuri
● BKF - Patrick Connors
MEETING SUMMARY
The purpose of the third Northeast Area Specific Plan virtual community workshop was to 1) share what the project team has heard from the second community meeting and other outreach efforts and demonstrate how this feedback has guided the development of the proposed design standards; 2) offer opportunity for Q&A about the Admin Draft; 3) gather responses and preferences on land use and urban form, mobility, and resilience. Feedback received during the workshop will be shared with the Planning & Transportation Commission and the City Council, and design standards will be revised in response to what we hear from the public.
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 2
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 488
Main Room: Presentation and Live Poll
Sajuti Haque opened the meeting and welcomed all participants, introducing the team, workshop intent, and agenda. During this initial part of the meeting, the chat function was available for participants to submit questions and comments. The chat transcript is provided in the Appendix.
The consultant team then conducted a live poll to get a sense of participant demographics. Key takeaways from the live poll are included below, and complete poll results are provided in the Appendix. ● 41% attendees were property owners in the Northeast Area, 24% were residents of San Carlos, and 12% were residents of East San Carlos
● 50% attendees identified as Non-hispanic White, 25% as Asian, 12.5% as Middle Eastern or North African ● 50% attendees were between 55-74 years of age, 39% were between 35-54, and 11% were between 25-34 After the live poll, Consultant team Project Manager Marc Asnis presented a project refresher, including the Vision for 2045, the Guiding Principles, an overview of the engagement conducted so far and the feedback provided by the community, as well as an overview of what a Specific Plan is and how it relates to other City directives and Plans.
Following the project refresher, there were presentations on Land Use and Urban Form, Mobility and Parking, and Resilience, detailing the vision, what we’ve heard so far, how the Specific Plan responds, and the proposed Development Frameworks and Design Standards for each of these topics. The community had the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions via the Chat function or verbally following the topic-specific presentations, to be answered by City staff or Consultant team.
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 3
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 489
A summary of the frequently asked questions and responses both through Chat and verbal discussion are included below. A full transcript of questions and responses through the Chat function is included in the Appendix.
Frequently Asked Questions & Answers
Key questions posed by meeting participants verbally and via the chat are included below, with answers from the City and Consultant team.
A full transcript of the questions posed in the chat and verbally is included in the appendix.
Land Use and Urban Form
Q: Why aren’t more parks proposed? There is a deficit of green space on the East Side of the neighborhood– can this area have more parks and open space than just the Belmont Creek?
● A: The City doesn't own any land within this district. Creating new greenspace and open space must be done incrementally in partnership with new developments. We are creating a standard that new developments would have to allocate a certain percentage of the area to publicly accessible green space. The Belmont Creek setback is currently a key area for publicly accessible open space.
Q: Are we addressing the need for more housing/more types of housing? There is a lack of permanent supportive housing for aging residents.
● A: Creating residential zoning in this district is meant to address the need for housing in this district. The Specific Plan doesn't outline the specifics of types of housing, but it does create the land use plan to accommodate housing in the future. We project upwards of 1890 units in the district, and opportunities for many types of housing to support a wide range of people. Designating specific housing programs is outside the scope of the Specific Plan. The City does have affordable housing resources here:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/community_development/housing/affordable_housing_and_resources/ index.php
Q: Can we create a community gathering area in this district? ● A: Belmont Creek could be that community gathering area. Looking at the larger vision for the district, we hope to create a variety of different gathering spaces that serve a wide variety of people with a wide variety of uses.
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 4
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 490
Mobility and Parking
Q: What will parking be like in the district? What requirements will there be for the creation of new parking? ● A: The Specific Plan takes a multi-pronged approach to manage parking needs, including eliminating minimum parking requirements.
This gives developers flexibility to only create the parking that they need, while incentivizing other forms of transportation, to ensure that enough parking is built without inducing more traffic in the neighborhood.
There is a new state-level law allowing a city to require any new parking to be shared, either as a public parking garage or as a private garage with some public access. Part of the strategy is to use any new parking more efficiently for more users. Because the city doesn't own any parcels in the district, this will be a longer term discussion. The Specific Plan will balance on- and off-street parking management, multi-modal transportation, and parking requirements to address parking in the district.
Q: What is the timeline/decision process for implementing parking infrastructure/locations? ● A: The Specific Plan is a general outline of the area, including detailed code on parking and traffic demand management. The City is embarking on a city-wide parking and transportation demand management (TDM) project that will address these issues across the whole city and is intended for adoption in early 2026.
Q: Old County Rd is a designated north-south bikeway but is poorly paved, with a heavy crown and too much parking. What is proposed for bicycles and parking from Springfield to Belmont Creek? ● A: See street section in the presentation: proposing 2-way buffered bikeway, separation between sidewalk and bikeway with multi-use curb zone to accommodate different features, and 2 lanes of traffic.
Q: How many vehicles will be added to the area based on the proposed housing? How will this demand for parking be met without impacting residential neighborhoods to the south?
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 5
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 491
● A: Parking studies did account for expected family versus individual housing to predict future vehicles. There will be off-street and some on-street parking, with increased management and on-street regulations (time limits, etc). The plan attempts to reduce parking demand by incentivizing bike trips, carpooling, and other forms of transportation in addition to managing parking. The City is holistically revisiting parking management strategies citywide.
Resilience
Q: Is there a plan for the floodplain to address future flooding risks? ● A: There is a draft Pulgas Creek Watershed Management Plan with applicable strategies, such as to build in detention to reduce the peak flows. These mirror strategies being discussed in the District Plan. Flood waters don't follow City boundaries and this will be reflected in our flood management strategies. Learn more at https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/public_works/pulgas_creek_watershed.php.
Q: There are several drainages and culverts in the project area which should be considered for flood risk and potential restoration. How is the City addressing potential flooding along these drainages and culverts? ● A: There is a setback along this channel, handled similarly to Belmont Creek. There is both a 50ft easement already in place in addition to a 30ft setback required with new developments, but not to the same extent as Belmont Creek. We heard from the community to prioritize Belmont Creek for resilience, and this is reflected in the Specific Plan.
Q: There is a 25-foot riparian landscape setback from top of the bank, but the top of the bank is inconsistent along Belmont Creek. Is a new development not obligated to allocate the full 50ft setback? Where does 25-foot setback come from for the riparian landscape? ● A: The top of the bank differs from property to property: the specifics will be addressed at a project level. The frontage area is not part of standard: 35 feet is the standard, and this extension is per guidance from OneShoreline. The 25 foot setback is in coordination with regional partners, and is planned to include a 10-foot multi-use trail while the rest of the area will remain for habitat creation and flood prevention.
Q: Where will the multi-use path go? Will the city compensate landowners for that property? San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 6
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 492
● A: There won't be a future extension across the freeway as a part of this plan, but we see value in creating a crossing of Industrial to the north. This is considered a setback from the top of the bank, which is a required development standard to be followed without compensation as a base requirement in the area.
Q: It looks like the berm plants between Old County Road and the tracks are to be removed. Is the planting bed on the berm berm going to be reduced?
● A: The proposed specific plan does not alter the planting along the berm.
General Comments
● Concern that proposed zoning, height limits, and setbacks will severely impact property values ○ Concern that variation in heights and bonus heights will significantly affect individual property values of neighboring properties – heights across land use areas should be consistent between neighboring properties ○ Interest in a set of standards that regulate height transitions between properties ● Concern that polluted sites should be completely cleaned up rather than capped to prevent pollutants and toxins from continuing to leach into groundwater and the SF Bay
● Concern over public/private partnerships in open space (like Alexandria on Old County Road): despite being technically public, concern that property owners will not treat parks/open space as such ● Community resiliency needs to be addressed: need for permanent supportive housing, low-income/underserved residents need to be close to transit. Please earmark/mandate low-income housing in this district ● Need green infrastructure, street trees, and shade
● Need to address potential flood risks along culverts and drainages, as new development will affect groundwater and absorption and contribute to flood impacts even outside of district boundaries ● Importance of traffic plans that maintain industrial traffic access to long-standing manufacturing uses San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 7
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 493
APPENDIX
Section 1: Demographic Poll
The following are the demographic analytics collected during the live poll at the beginning of the workshop, from workshop participants that contributed to the poll.
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 8
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 494
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 9
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 495
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 10
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 496
Section 2: Chat Transcript - Comments & Questions
Note that relevant questions that were answered during or after the workshop are included in the Frequently Asked Questions + Answers section of this summary. The following is a transcript of all the comments and questions received during the workshop. ● Don't forget East Side General Plan update and Zoning ● Where is the Community Benefit Area?
● Height for land use areas needs to be the same for everyone to not affect future property value of neighboring properties. ● These bonus heights cannot vary between our next door neighbor and our property. This will significantly affect the potential value of our property compared to the next door property.
● Except for the expanded creek flood plain for obvious reasons there are no parks proposed while more residential is proposed and there is an existing deficit on the east side.
● Would like to see clear policy that polluted sites will be completely cleaned up and not capped before being redeveloped and not be allowed to continue to leach toxins into groundwater and SF Bay.
● 360-380 Industrial Road: As we have previously communicated, the proposed zoning combined with the height limits and setbacks severely limit the development possibilities of our property, due the shape and dimensions of our parcels. It is our belief that the proposed zoning very negatively impacts the value of our property.
● Thanks for the thoughtfully prepared land use plan and presentation. It seems well thought through and sensitively laid out. ● These properties wanting height/setback bonuses will face strong local opposition. ● Our experience with prior public open spaces being required by large developments (i.e. Alexandria on Old County Road) is that the property owners do not believe the park/open spaces are for public use/ This really needs to be memorialized by easement and through complete transparency with the community.
● A continuation of East Side Connect needs to continue along Old County Road including undergrounding the power lines. Bike lanes need improvement on Old County Road too.
● Bike lane improvement
● There should be a street tree plan (including maintenance and irrigation) and a green infrastructure plan. ● Old County Rd is a designated north-south bikeway but is poorly paved, with a heavy crown and too much parking. What is proposed for bicycles and parking from Springfield to Belmont Creek?
● Why not create a community gathering area in this second downtown? ● The creek is a creek, and a sensitive environment. A community gathering area is different. ● Got disconnected. Industrial Rd. has been mentioned to become a boulevard. Need to make sure that this change does not restrict the truck and trailers access to our property and business so we can continue manufacturing the products we have been manufacturing for 50+ years at this location.
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 11
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 497
● In addition to Parking and TDM standards there should be a set of standards throughout San Carlos for screening the transitions from one land use to the next including single family homes to multi family homes especially when there is a large difference in height. ● It looks like the berm plants between old county and the tracks are to be removed. Is the planting bed on the berm berm going to be reduced? ● Is there a study of how many vehicles will be added to the area based on the expected family housing vs. individual housing and how is the parking to accommodate the demand for space will be accomplished. ● If parking in this area is all going to be in parking garages, how do you protect parking in the residential neighborhood to the south? ● How do the sidewalks between Springfield and Northwood line up with the sidewalks in the picture of old co. rd.? ● Will there be an increased flood plain plan along the culvert north of Northwood to address future flooding risks? Similar to along Belmont creek.
The culvert is south of development proposed in the NE area along Taylor Way. Should be addressed by plan ● There is a drainage between Taylor and Northfield that needs to be considered. Also a drainage between PAMF and PG&E east of Industrial.
These should be restored and not culverted.
● How does the plan improve, at least maintain the flow of rainwater through and away from the existing residences? Or are you still only considering water flow within the district boundaries?
● The drainage on Industrial Rd in front of Delta Star is a low point where the water accumulates from other streets, especially from Taylor Way and every time it rains we need to call the City to unclog and help the water flow. ● Many of the residents have young children and can't attend at this time.
Section 3: Verbal Transcript - Comments & Questions
Note that relevant questions that were answered during or after the workshop are included in the Frequently Asked Questions + Answers section of this summary.The following is a transcript of the verbalized questions and comments during the workshop. ● Future property value limited by lower max. height than neighboring properties ● How do we define new construction? Are changes to existing structures new construction? ● Is there a bonus height for the residential area?
● Is there a requirement for trees to protect privacy adjacent to single family housing? ● Overflow parking will come into single family neighborhoods. How is this being managed? ● A community benefit area had been proposed but we don't see it here-- just more housing. This is an opportunity to clean up polluted sites and not capped prior to redevelopment, to avoid pollutants leaching into the bay. ● We already have a deficit of greenspace on the East Side. The creek has been constrained over time and the floodplain is important, but not quite a park.
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 12
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 498
● These sites should be cleaned up rather than capped before being developed ● Wants Northbound highway 101 on ramp at Harbor
● Are we addressing the need for more housing/more types of housing? There is a lack of permanent supportive housing for aging residents. ● Is there no longer a community benefit associated with mixed-use parcels? ● Is there a maximum density/FAR for mixed-use parcels? ● Is there another venue to express support for including housing for people with mental illness to receive support? ● Are there minimum parking requirements? Up to developers? ● How realistic is a shared parking garage? Will we be using side streets to fill parking need? Ideally everyone would take CalTrain, but many people will drive.
● What is the timeline/decision process for implementing parking infrastructure/locations? ● Palo Alto had great success with providing a public parking garage ● Need green infrastructure and trees, shade for heat
● Community resiliency needs to be addressed, need for permanent supportive housing, low-income/underserved residents need to be close to transit. Please earmark/mandate low-income housing
● The south side of the project area has a culvert, from Old County along the property line. Is the city addressing potential flooding in this plan? ● 25 foot riparian landscape from top of the bank, which is inconsistent along Belmont Creek. Is a new development not obligated to allocate the full 50ft setback? Where does 25 foot setback come from for the riparian landscape? ● Where will the multi-use path go? Will the city compensate landowners for that property? ● Culvert should be on city's radar as needing to be addressed; new development will affect flow of groundwater and absorption, need to figure out how not to block water from draining to bay
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan | Community Workshop #3 Meeting Summary 13
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 499
Outlook
Re: Follow-up questions from NEASP community meeting
From Sajuti Haque <[email protected]>
Date Mon 1/6/2025 2:58 PM
To
Cc AdvancePlanning <[email protected]>; Lisa Porras <[email protected]>; Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Hello Leslie,
Happy New Year! Please see below for the responses (in blue) to your questions. Thank you for your continued engagement. Feel free to reach out with any other questions.
Sajuti Haque, AICP | Economic Development & Housing Manager Community Development Department | City of San Carlos
[email protected] | (650) 802-4191
From: Leslie Wambach
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 8:17 AM
To: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Follow-up questions from NEASP community meeting External Sender - From: (Leslie Wambach
)
This message came from outside your organization.
Learn More
My apologies Lisa and Sajuti,
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 500
I accidentally gave you the wrong link for The Kelsey Ayers Station project. This one is more direct:
Inclusive Apartment Homes in San
Jose - The Kelsey Ayer Station
livethekelsey.com
Best regards,
Leslie
On Nov 14, 2024, at 3:23 PM, Leslie Wambach
wrote:
Hello Lisa and Sajuti,
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 501
Thank you for hosting the community input session last
Thursday regarding the NEASP project. Your overall land use plan appears very thoughtfully considered.
We at NAMI and Solutions for Supportive Homes (S4SH)
see so much potential with this redevelopment area to
make a meaningful dent in the City's 739 unit target for combined Acutely-Extremely- & Very-Low Incomes that is
currently called for in your Housing Element.
We'd like to share our vision for the type of project that could achieve this goal for the City and be perfect for the NEASP area:
The Kelsey at Ayer Station in San Jose is a 115 unit
affordable housing project focused on meeting the needs of the broader disability community. It provides restricted affordable housing for those earning between 20% and
80% of Area Median Income, with 25% of the units set
aside for residents with a wide range of disabilities. All apartments exceed code-required accessibility design, and the property offers robust services to support residents with additional needs, otherwise referred to as
Permanent Supportive Housing.
https://thekelsey.org/
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss ways that
we might help the City to achieve such a project.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 502
We have a few follow-up questions from the recent
meeting:
1) Do you have a standing Housing Committee, an
Affordable Housing Planning Manager, or other
appropriate staff member that we could connect with?
Response: The City Council has a standing Housing
Subcommittee. Continue checking this webpage for
updated information:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/city_council/co uncil_committee_assignments.php. The City also has a
Housing and Economic Development Division and you can
contact them at [email protected]
2) Could the City create a specific zoning designation for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) to ensure its
creation in this area? or, create a zoning overlay incentive for the development of PSH in this area?
Response: To create any overlay zonings or incentives
would need be a policy directive coming from the City
Council.
3) Or, could the City obtain funding from the state or county to purchase a parcel within the NEASP area that
could then be put out for RFP specifically for the
development of PSH? Are there not grant funding
mechanisms for this (via Prop 1, Community Development
Block Grants, and other sources) at the state level? We recently read about the release of a $2.2B funding
program for this purpose called Homekey+.
Response: This would also have be a policy directive from the City Council. Staff is always monitoring grant and
funding opportunities and apply to the ones we qualify. 4) Does the City have any other ear-marked in-lieu
housing funds set aside for the creation of Low-income
housing that could be accessed?
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 503
Response: The City has a robust Below Market Rate
(BMR) Housing Program which aims to encourage the
development of affordable housing units consistent with the City’s Housing Element and to offset the demand for affordable housing that is created by new development.
Through this program, developers may opt to pay an inlieu fee if they cannot develop the units on-site. This money is deposited in the BMR Trust Fund and section
18.16.110 of the Code provides details on the
expenditures. Specifically it states: Fund monies shall be used in accordance with the City’s Housing Element, or
subsequent plans adopted by the City Council to maintain or increase the quantity, quality, and variety of affordable housing units or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to, land acquisition, debt service, parcel assemblage, gap financing, housing
rehabilitation, grants, unit acquisition, new construction, and other pursuits associated with providing affordable housing. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.
We have seen that developers, on their own, have difficulty cobbling-together adequate funding to expeditiously get such projects started, and that often the land is provided at a lower cost to them in order to expedite the planning and development process especially for this particular
category of affordable housing (Acutely Low-Income PSH).
Given the huge backlog of unmet need for PSH. we would
enthusiastically collaborate with you and other City staff to help such an effort in any way needed.
Please let us know if and how we can help.
Sincerely,
Leslie
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 504
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 505
Outlook
Clarification on MU-N-120 set back requirements
From Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Date Tue 3/25/2025 3:59 PM
To Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
From: Christina Jain
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 12:33 PM
To: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Subject: Clarification on MU-N-120 set back requirements External Sender - From: (Christina Jain
This message came from outside your organization.
Learn More
Hello! I attended the community workshops on 11/7 and 11/13 which discussed the new northeast development area and revised design standards for multi-unit buildings. Rucha Dande's team suggested that I reach out to this email to get information on the proposed development standards for the northeast area.
I heard on Thurs 11/7 that MU-N-120 would have a stepback of 35 feet within 130 feet of single family residential, but at the Weds 11/13 meeting, planners there said that this requirement was not applicable to homes along this red line b/c there is an drainage canal between the homes and the new development area. I would like to know if it is true that developers will be allowed to build up to 75' directly behind our homes. It would be more logical (and fair) to still require the 35 feet stepback within 130 feet of single family homes regardless of whether there is a strip of city property within that distance.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 506
Second, the presentation on 11/13 had the slides below that were really helpful in communicating what residents could expect in the future. Are there similar sections available for the MU-N-120 building type?
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 507
Thank you!
Christina
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 508
Outlook
Re: Northeast Area Specific Plan questions
From Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Date Mon 3/17/2025 1:23 PM
To
Bcc AdvancePlanning <[email protected]>; Sajuti Haque <[email protected]> Hi Blake,
Thanks for reaching out and for providing your questions. Staff and the consultant team are proceeding with the preferred land use option (screenshot below) based on the City Council's direction. We are actually aiming to publish a Public Draft next week that will provide the development standards you've noted below, for the proposed mixed-use areas.
If you aren't already on the mailing list for the Northeast Area Specific Plan, let me know and I can have you added to be notified of when the Public Draft is available online. -Rendell
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Advance Planning Division
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
[email protected] | (650) 802-4255
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 509
From: Blake Wellen
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 3:12 PM
To: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Subject: Northeast Area Specific Plan questions
External Sender - From: (Blake Wellen )
This message came from outside your organization.
Learn More
Greetings, San Carlos Planning.
Per figure 1 on the NASP website, it appears the “Preferred Land Use Option for the Northeast Area Specific Plan” is what will like be adopted in regards to land use/zoning designations, correct?
Can staff share any initial ideas of where development standards will land as it relates to “Residential Mixed-Use Sub Area 1” & “Residential Mixed-Use Sub Area 2” (eg. Min-Max densities, Max height, if projects can go 100% multifamily, or will a Mixed-Use component be required?)
Any feedback at this stage would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Blake Wellen
Bella Vista Land Advisors
Real Estate Brokerage/Investment
DRE #02130931
www.bvla.net
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 510
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 511
Outlook
Re: San Carlos, Northeast planning area
From Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Date Fri 3/21/2025 5:26 PM
To
Cc Sajuti Haque <[email protected]>
Bcc AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Hello Kent,
Thanks for your email and questions. The Public Draft of the Northeast Area Specific Plan will be posted online at www.sancarlosnortheastplan.com this coming Thursday, March 27th. The Public Draft will also be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on Wednesday April 2nd.
The Specific Plan does propose land use changes (industrial to mixed-use residential, for example) to further the area as a mixed-use district; however, the Plan serves to guide development. Existing business are able to remain and continue unless the property owner were to propose a redevelopment project. The new redevelopment project would need to conform to the Specific Plan.
I hope this helps clarify. I'd be happy to discuss over the phone if you had additional questions.
Thanks,
Rendell
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Advance Planning Division
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
[email protected] | (650) 802-4255
From: Kent Kitagawa
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 10:14 AM
To: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Subject: San Carlos, Northeast planning area
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 512
External Sender - From: (Kent Kitagawa
This message came from outside your organization.
Learn More
Morning
I've reached out to the planning committee when the Northeast area was being surveyed and asking for opinions and or concerns.
My business is located at I've been there since 2010.
HomeGrown CrossFit. Back a year ago, San Carlos planning informed me that the small businesses south on Taylor Way were not going to be changed.
As I look over the Northeast area specific plan - Visual diagram I can see Taylor Way will change to "mix use residential"? Does that mean the existing small businesses will remain as-is?
I have a long-term lease till Dec 2030.
Please advise at your earliest convenience
Best regards
Kent Kitagawa - Co-Owner HomeGrown CrossFit,
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam.
=
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 513
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 514
The Vision for More Housing and More Open Space
in San Carlos
The goal for the NE Specific Plan is to add much needed housing to the City of San Carlos.
This area is the only logical place in the City where denser housing can be added to meet the 2031 timeline as laid out by the State of California. At the current 90’ height limit the study group is considering, the greater goal of 2,735 new housing units will not be met.
Moreover, the proposed zone will not produce a project that will incentivize the existing owner, or any developer, to scrape a well-maintained, profitable industrial park. Therefore, the City must reconsider their currently contemplated 90’ height restriction. For a mixeduse development to be vibrant and successful, it must be supported by both sufficient housing and enough appropriate businesses, which need to come online at the same time.
G. W. Williams Co., which has owned and operated the majority of the land within the NE Specific Plan for nearly 60 years, is amenable to working with the City to create this vision.
Our Company is also willing to incorporate a “Union Square” as an open space, which will be an enormous benefit to the new community. Instead of the typical urban sprawl, a wellplanned, mixed-use community with the height necessary to add needed housing and more open space could be brought to San Carlos. Together we can create a brighter future for those who want to live and play near their work, without negatively impacting the current businesses in San Carlos.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 515
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 516
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 517
Outlook
NEASP - Message Follow Up (Michael Kurt)
From Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Date Mon 4/7/2025 11:59 AM
To
Hello Michael,
I am the project manager for the Northeast Area Specific Plan and wanted to respond to your message (copied below). Existing businesses can continue to operate and are not required to conduct renovations unless they volunteer to do so. Should an owner or business request to do a remodel, expansion, etc., then that project would be subject to the new requirements of the Northeast Area Specific Plan once it's adopted and in effect. If you'd like additional guidance, it'd be great to have the business address to determine the existing and proposed zoning designation. I hope this helps, thanks!
Name:
Michael Kurt
Email:
Would you like to receive news & updates?:
Yes
Message:
What will be required of business owners who wish to continue doing business in the Northeast Area and what is the timeline for starting any required renovations? I am a...:
Business owner within the within the Northeast Area
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Advance Planning Division
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
[email protected] | (650) 802-4255
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 518
!! "#$!!%&'()!*
&*#!+#,- .
/
012312425 64728 9: ;=>??@ABCDEE>F GHDEIAJ@KAL@MANKOPCQERAJ@KMASK>NT@EAU@AUH>AVWXYZ[\]Y^_X[\^`a[bcdb^ef\g^h[i]cY[jAkKMM>EU?JFAl>ADETmCnDU> OMCERCERAUH>Aon>mCpmAq?DEAU@AUH>Aq?DEECERAk@PPCNNC@EADErAkCUJAk@KEmC?AL@MADr@nT@EADM@KErAsmU@O>Mtu@v>PO>MA@L UHCNAJ>DMjAw>AD?N@ADETmCnDU>AOMCERCERAUH>AxX\y^`a[bcdb^ef\gAU@AUH>AkCUJAk@KEmC?ADUAUH>CMAzDJA{|UHAP>>TER }U>EUDTv>?J~j AHDv>ADrr>rAJ@KAU@AUH>AnM@>mUA>PDC?A?CNUAU@AM>m>Cv>AE@Tm>A@Em>ANUKrJAN>NNC@ENADErAnKO?CmAH>DMCERNADM>AH>?rA@E UHCNAnM@>mUjAq?>DN>AM>DmHA@KUAlCUHADEJASK>NT@ENj >Er>?? o>EC@MAq?DEE>MAArvDEm>Aq?DEECERABCvCNC@E kCUJA@LAoDEAkDM?@N A?PAoUM>>UFAoDEAkDM?@NFAkA| MOKNU@NmCUJ@LNDEmDM?@Nj@MRAA}~A{{
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 519
Harbor Industrial Association Meeting
January 9, 2025
Presentation Overview
The meeting included a presentation from Sajuti Haque, Economic Development & Housing Manager, that focused on key elements of the upcoming Northeast Area Specific Plan including land use, mobility and parking, and environmental resilience. The questions and feedback from the Harbor Industrial Association (HIA) is summarized below.
HIA Questions and Input
1. What will be different in the existing heavy industrial zone and light industrial zone?
2. About how many stories is 100 feet?
3. What kind of housing are you thinking? Townhouses, condominiums?
4. When does the plan take effect?
5. As far as being grandfathered, can I get a business license if I have a new tenant? How does the six-month vacancy provision apply?
6. Is 90 feet the height, on corner on Bragato and Old County?
7. Our position for the grandfather clause is to allow what is allowed now.
8. I am uncertain of where we’re going and clarity on what will or could evolve in the final plan.
9. Why hasn’t a City Councilmember attended one of these HIA meetings?
10. What would trigger requiring the new road to be built?
11. What is the height limit at the industrial area, and what is considered an active use?
12. Sites are upzoning, where will small businesses go? Concerns around displacement of industrial businesses currently in the proposed mixed-use residential areas.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 520
Greater East San Carlos (GESC) Open House Meeting
January 30, 2025
Open House Overview
This Open House took place at the Laureola Park Community Center on January 30, 2025 from 7-8:30 PM. The Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) had a small booth amongst other booths on several long-range planning efforts the City is undertaking. Sajuti Haque, Economic Development & Housing Manager, staffed the NEASP booth and gathered comments from the attendees. Approximately 50 community members attended. The questions and feedback are summarized below.
Questions and Input
1. Where will the community park be located? We want a community park in the Northeast Area similar to Laureola Park because the current park is full and it is hard to find space on the weekends.
2. The plazas and green spaces in the middle of the life science campuses don’t count as a community park.
3. Housing will be a good addition to the area. Does it meet the desired job/housing ratio?
4. The stepdown to 35 feet is still very tall next to the GESC neighborhood. It’s going to block our views of the hills.
5. What is the benefit of the paseo connecting the Northeast Area to the existing GESC neighborhood. Concerns around safety of the existing residential neighborhood.
6. When will the development start happening?
7. What type of housing are we anticipating?
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 521
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Mateo
The undersigned declares: That at all times hereinafter mentioned, affiant was a permanent resident of the United States, over the age of eighteen years old, and was at and during all said times. The Office Manager of the San Mateo Daily Journal, a newspaper published daily in the County of San Mateo, State of California. The notice mentioned was set in type no smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed in black face type not smaller than size 6, describing and expressing in general terms, the purpose and character of the notice intended to be given; that the
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
Of which the annexed is a printed copy was published and printed in said newspaper on the 16th Day of May 2025.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
________________________________
JP Uganiza
Dated at San Mateo, California,
This 16th Day of May 2025.
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 522
11.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 523
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Accepting a Report on the City of San Carlos Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Trends (AB 2561).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the City Council receive a report on the City of San Carlos workforce vacancies, recruitment, and retention trends as it related to Assembly Bill (AB) 2561.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND:
On September 22, 2024, Governor Newsom signed AB 2561 into law to amend the Meyers-MiliasBrown Act (MMBA), thereby creating a new obligation for public agencies to publicly address the status of their workforce vacancies.
AB 2561 requires public agencies to present the status of their vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts during a public hearing before their governing board at least once per fiscal year prior to the adoption of a final budget for the fiscal year. During the presentation, the public agency is also required to identify any changes to policies, procedures, or recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process.
If the number of vacancies meets or exceeds 20% of the total number of authorized full-time positions in a particular bargaining unit, the public agency shall include the following information in its presentation upon request of the recognized employee organization:
• The total number of job vacancies within a bargaining unit • The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit • The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted • Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions Additionally, AB 2561 entitles recognized employee organizations, regardless of the vacancy rate, to make a presentation before the governing board of a public agency during the same public hearing in which the public agency makes its annual presentation on vacancies.
12.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 524
ANALYSIS:
The City of San Carlos has four employee groups (two represented and two unrepresented) consisting of 103 budgeted full-time positions.
The number of budgeted full-time positions by employee group for fiscal year 2024-25 are listed below:
• American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 829: 36 • Teamster, Local 856: 21
• Unrepresented Confidential Group: 13
• Unrepresented Management Group: 33
Vacancies
Position vacancies are created for a number of reasons including when newly budgeted positions are approved, when there is internal movement such as a promotion, or when an employee leaves the organization due to retirement, voluntary resignation, or involuntary termination. When vacancies occur, it is a high priority for the Human Resources division and the City’s hiring managers to fill vacant positions in order to ensure continuity of services, maintain operational efficiency, and minimize disruptions to departmental functions. Timely recruitment and hiring efforts help the City sustain its workforce, meet community needs, and uphold service standards while also providing opportunities for internal growth and external talent acquisition.
Although AB 2561 now requires staff to present annually on the status of vacancies and efforts to recruit and retain staff, it has always been a priority for the City to fill vacancies as soon as reasonably possible.
Vacancy Rate by Bargaining Group as of April 30, 2025:
• AFSCME, Local 829: 8.33% (3 positions)
• Teamster, Local 856: 0.00%
• Unrepresented Confidential Group: 0.00%
• Unrepresented Management Group: 0.00%
During the current fiscal year, no bargaining unit met or exceeded a 20% vacancy of the total budgeted full-time positions.
Recruitment
The life cycle of a recruitment starts when the hiring department notifies Human Resources staff via a recruitment request form they would like to open a recruitment. HR then opens a job posting, either internally or externally, to capture applicants to interview by a panel of subject matter experts and hiring manager(s). Upon selection of a candidate, reference checks are conducted, a conditional job offer is provided, the candidate completes necessary pre-employment procedures (e.g., background check, physical, etc.), a start date is determined, and a formal offer of employment is presented.
From the start of recruitment until and new employee’s hire date, the average amount of time to fill a regular vacant position is approximately 76 days.
12.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 525
We post our positions on a variety of platforms, including on our City website, Calopps, LinkedIn, and other social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. For some positions we also use Handshake. Handshake is a good platform for connecting with local colleges when hiring college students or recent graduates. We also utilize niche job board for specific industries or roles such as American Public Works Association (APWA) Planetizen, and California Park & Recreation Society (CPRS) just to name a few.
Retention
The City’s retention rate for the current fiscal year to date is approximately 97%, reflecting a strong ability to retain employees. The retention rate is calculated number of employees at the beginning of (July 2024), divided by the number of employees who remained with the City through April 30, 2025.
The City incorporates several retention strategies. The City aims to prioritize both physical and mental well-being. The City’s hybrid-telework option help employees avoid long commutes daily.
Employees are encouraged to use their paid time off to rest and recharge, reducing burnout and supporting a healthy work-life balance. Additionally, the City provides an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and access to a wellness room that can be used outside of normal working hours.
The City also has a robust training and development program to provide career advancement as well as enhance employee engagement. Strengths-based training helps enhance employee engagement and satisfaction by focusing on an employee’s individual talents, which fosters a sense of value and purpose. Professional growth and development are also fostered through the Tuition Reimbursement Program, where employees are eligible to receive reimbursement for the cost of educational programs which are directly related to the employee’s occupational field with the City. This demonstrates the City’s commitment to employees’ long-term professional development.
In closing, the City has made significant strides in addressing vacancies and recruitment, and it is clear that retention is a crucial element for continued focus. By investing in employee engagement, wellness, professional development, recognition, and open communication, the City can continue to foster an environment where talent not only thrives but chooses to stay long-term.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Receive a report on the City of San Carlos workforce vacancies, recruitment, and retention trends as it related to AB 2561; or
2. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
12.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 526
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
12.a
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 527
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting Resolutions Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset Project; and Adopting the Amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental
Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset project; and
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is no fiscal impact and no additional appropriation is needed at this time.
On June 25, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Placeworks in an amount not to exceed $390,000 to prepare an update to the 2030 General Plan and appropriated funds in C2311. There are no fiscal implications should the City Council decide to certify the EIR and adopt amendments to the 2030 General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 2025, the San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing to receive comments on the 2045 General Plan Reset project and accompanying Final EIR. The Commission adopted Resolution No. PTC2025-05 (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR; the Commission also adopted Resolution No. PTC2025-06 (Attachment 4) recommending that the City Council adopt the General Plan amendments as part of the 2045 General Plan Reset project. Attachment 5 provides notes from the Commission’s May 5, 2025, public hearing.
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 528
The purpose of May 27, 2025 City Council public hearing is to receive public comments on the proposed General Plan amendments and Final EIR and to consider adopting resolutions (Attachments 1 and 2) certifying the EIR and adopting the General Plan amendments as set forth by the 2045 General Plan Reset project.
A study session with the City Council was held on February 24, 2025 date to review the outcomes of the Draft EIR and review proposed amendments to the 2030 General Plan. For reference, see Attachment 6 of the staff report packet for this meeting.
ANALYSIS:
What is a General Plan?
California Government Code Section 65300 requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city. A General Plan is a visionary document and includes details about how a community will grow, reflecting the community priorities and values while shaping the future.
The City of San Carlos’ General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2009 and since then, has undergone amendments to update its Housing Element (in 2015 and again in 2023) and Safety Element (in 2023) and minor amendments to certain elements in 2023. The 2009 General Plan covers the years 2010 to 2030 and anticipated a certain level of development capacity for commercial, office, industrial, and housing within San Carlos to the year 2030.
What is the purpose of this General Plan amendment?
Over the past five years, the City has experienced an unprecedented amount of private sector investment in the east side, particularly from business and employment growth in research and development in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors, and also from smaller manufacturing enterprises and other commercial services. This unanticipated development put San Carlos on a trajectory to exceed the level of development capacity that was anticipated in its adopted 2030 General Plan. In response to this, the City is preparing an update to reset the horizon year from 2030 to 2045 to adequately plan for the development of new offices, restaurants, commercial uses and services, retail, industrial, and housing in the city to the year 2045.
This General Plan update, called the 2045 General Plan Reset, accounts for other long range planning initiatives, specifically the Downtown and Northeast Area Specific Plans, which are both currently in progress. In July 2023, the City entered into an agreement with the consultant firm PlaceWorks to assist with the 2045 General Plan Reset and the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Project Timeline
The project was initiated in July 2023 with a focus on developing new buildout projections to the year 2045. As part of this, the project team collaborated with City staff and consultants working on other long-range planning efforts, specifically the Downtown and Northeast Area Specific Plans. After developing draft buildout projections to the year 2045, the team prepared for environmental analysis as required by CEQA. Subsequently, the team conducted stakeholder focus group meetings to solicit stakeholder feedback. For a complete chronology of the project, see Table 1 below.
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 529
Table 1: Chronology of the project’s public review to date Event Date
Development of Buildout Projections Jun 2023 – May 2024 EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) review Jun 3 – Jul 3, 2024 PTC Public Hearing on NOP Jun 17, 2024
Stakeholder focus group meetings Sept – Oct 2024
General Plan amendments and Draft EIR review Jan 17 – Mar 3, 2025 PTC Public Hearing on General Plan
Amendments and the Draft EIR
Feb 3, 2025
City Council Study Session Feb 24, 2025
Public Draft General Plan amendments and
Final EIR release
Apr 22, 2025
PTC Public Hearing on the items above May 5, 2025
Recommended General Plan Amendments (Development Projections and Text Amendments)
The 2045 General Plan Reset project is much more focused than a complete General Plan update. It does not include any changes to current General Plan land use designations or complete rewrites of any of the Elements; instead, the focus is to adjust development (i.e. buildout) projections to the year 2045. The 2045 General Plan amendments also propose policy amendments resulting from minor updates related to recent state laws and current Citywide plans or regulations and include policies resulting from EIR mitigation measures.
The proposed 2045 General Plan amendments include projections for housing, population, and jobs growth (see Table 2 below). It is important to note that the projections of housing, jobs, and population are derived from Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projections, specific plans, and remaining areas of the city, and not an aspirational job/housing ratio. While it is reasonable to monitor the city’s jobs-housing ratio, achieving a balance between housing and jobs is considered the responsibility of ABAG/MTC, and is addressed through the Plan Bay Area and Regional Housing Needs Allocation processes.
Table 2: Projected Housing, Population and Jobs Growth to 2045 Existing
Conditions 2024 Increase by 2045 Total 2045
Housing Units 12,700 8,060 20,770
Population 29,350 15,620 44,510
Jobs 28,930 18,010 46,950
The recommended projections for commercial, office and industrial growth are provided in Table
3. 12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 530
Table 3: Projected Commercial, Office, Research and Development, and Industrial Growth to 2045
Existing
Conditions
2024
Projected
Growth 2045
(Total)
Percentage
Change 2024-
2045
Commercial 772,800 959,500 24%
Office 1,462,500 1,806,200 24%
Research and
Development
5,647,900 10,576,000 87%
Industrial 4,580,800 5,361,800 17%
In addition to the buildout tables within the General Plan, City staff also identified minor corrections and updates to existing policies and narrative text in the General Plan to refer to recent City or state regulations and updates. The project EIR also informed several General Plan policy amendments to prevent potential environmental impacts. Refer to Exhibits A, B, and C of Attachment 2 for General Plan amendments.
A summary of Chapters and content within the 2030 General Plan that would be amended include:
Chapter 1 - Introduction: Land acknowledgement, narrative, and background information.
Chapter 3 - Land Use Element: Narrative, existing conditions, future development projections, and policy and action language pertaining to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, East Side Innovation District Vision Plan, and cultural, historical, and tribal cultural resources.
Chapter 5 - Circulation and Scenic Highways Element: Narrative and policy language related to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Chapter 6 - Environmental Management Element: Background information on wastewater and stormwater and policy updates incorporating bird safe design guidelines and hydrology, requirement for Biological Resources Assessment and consideration of embodied carbon in Climate Action Plan.
Chapter 7 – Parks and Recreation Element: Policy update related to implementing the City’s Potential Trail Connections Plan.
Chapter 9 – Noise Element: Narrative and policy language related to the existing airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and the City’s noise ordinance.
Methodology to develop 2045 Development Projections
The proposed development projections up to 2045 take into account:
1. Development projected within the Northeast Area Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
2. Current and future Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycles
3. Anticipated development for the remainder of the City, and
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 531
4. Projects in the development pipeline.
The Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) are being prepared concurrently with this project, and both are being developed with a 2045 horizon year.
Both specific plans include buildout projections that have been incorporated into the projected citywide buildout capacity for the 2045 General Plan Reset project.
Development projections for housing units consider the current RHNA cycle and anticipated RHNA allocations to the year 2045.
A Market Demand Study (Attachment 7) was prepared by the City’s on-call economic consultant, RSG, to inform the development projections for the remainder of the City and were based on regional and market trends as well as staff input on development interest in the City.
Projections also accounted for pipeline projects that have been approved but not yet constructed and projects with complete applications which were under review until April, 2024.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a State law that requires public agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions. An EIR is a document intended to inform government decisionmakers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities and to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage.
Pursuant to CEQA, updates to General Plans are required to undergo an environmental assessment and prepare an EIR. The EIR serves as the tool to assess environmental impacts associated with the project; communicate the impacts to the public, as well as local and State decision makers; and identify mitigation measures for impacts if needed. The City Council must certify the EIR before considering action on the proposed project (i.e. in this case, the 2045 General Plan amendments). Along with certification of the EIR, the City Council would consider adoption of proposed mitigation measures and may also require other feasible mitigation measures. In some cases, the City Council may find that certain mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City to implement, or that no feasible mitigation measures can be identified for a given significant impact. In that case, the City Council would have to adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 declaring that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable, significant effects on the environment.
As a reference point, the 2030 General Plan and associated EIR conducted in 2009 identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality and transportation for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City must adopt “Findings” regarding the EIR prior to adopting the proposed General Plan amendments. Along with adoption of the Findings, the City must adopt a program for monitoring or reporting mitigation measures included in the EIR; the purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. Following the EIR certification, the City Council may adopt the proposed General Plan amendments.
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 532
Pursuant to the CEQA process, the Draft EIR and Final EIR together constitute the EIR for the project. The findings of Draft EIR and Final EIR are noted below.
Summary of Draft EIR Findings
Within the Draft EIR, impacts of net increase in development are from the current conditions to the year 2045. The projected net change data is included in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Projected Net Change (2024-2045)
The Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the 2045 General Plan amendments including the 2045 development projections. CEQA requires that local government agencies, prior to acting on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects.
The Draft EIR analyzed a range of environmental topics and identified impacts as either: (1) No Impact or Less-than-Significant Impact, or (2) Significant Impact. These are summarized below.
For “No Impact” or “Less-than-Significant Impact”, these include: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, parks and recreation, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.
For “Significant Impacts”, these include: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and wildfire.
A summary of the Significant Impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures are identified in the Draft EIR and described below.
• Air Quality - Construction and Operations Emissions: The proposed project could result in emissions due to future construction and operations of new buildings which could exceed the Bay Area Air District (Air District) thresholds. The mitigation measure requires future project applicants to submit a technical assessment of construction and operations related impacts in conformance with Air District’s methodology; if the project exceeds Air District’s thresholds, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures. Project applicants of certain new industrial or warehousing development projects as defined in Draft EIR, may also be required to conduct a health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with requirements of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Air District. While the identified mitigation measures have the potential to reduce construction and operation emissions, potential future development projects (individually or cumulatively) could still exceed the Air District’s thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project (i.e. 2045 General Category
Net Change
from Pipeline
Development
Projects
Net Change
from
Downtown
Specific
Plan
Net Change
from
Northeast
Area Specific
Plan
Additional Net
Change for
remainder of
the City
Total
Projected Net
Change
(2024-2045)
Housing Units 242 1,565 1,890 4,603 8,300
Population 462 2,990 3,611 8,557 15,620
Non-Residential
Square Footage
2,688,000 420,820 4,178,228 1,640,252 8,927,300
Jobs 8,525 908 12,990 4,107 26,530
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 533
Plan Reset) could result in significant and unavoidable impacts. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Implementation of the proposed project could exceed the greenhouse (GHG) emissions threshold of no net increase from existing conditions, which may affect the long term GHG reduction goal under Senate Bill (SB) 32 and SB 1279. The mitigation measure requires the City of San Carlos to update its Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) within three years of certification of the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR. The updated CMAP shall be updated every five years to ensure the City of San Carlos is monitoring the CMAP’s progress toward achieving its GHG reduction target(s), and the City shall amend the CMAP if it is not achieving such targets. The identified mitigation measure would ensure the CMAP is updated to achieve long term GHG reduction goals. However, it is unknown at this time whether targets contained in the future CMAP update will be achieved and therefore GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. • Transportation: The proposed project could generate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per service population, per capita, and per employee at a level that is greater than 15 percent less than the regional average and therefore, could increase total countywide VMT. The mitigation measure requires that the City of San Carlos amend its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to increase the required trip reduction to the maximum extent feasible. Until the TDM program is amended (expected in the first quarter of 2026), this impact remains significant and unavoidable. (Please note that while CEQA only requires the study of VMT impacts and not Level of Service or LOS impacts, an LOS analysis was done to understand LOS impacts as part of the project’s Traffic Operations Report and included as Attachment 4.) • Wildfire: Future development (i.e. new construction) during the buildout horizon of the proposed project could increase population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfire-prone areas, thereby exacerbating wildfire risks. This includes cumulative impacts associated with the exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire.
There are numerous preventative measures the City considers in wildfire-prone areas, from defensible space requirements to “wildland urban interface” (WUI) building code requirements. The City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan and San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan work together to provide a set of policies, actions, standards, and strategies to mitigate the risks and protection from wildfires. In addition to these, there are federal, state and regional regulations that address wildfire prevention and protection. The General Plan Safety Element includes specific policies and actions that require both existing developments and new projects to establish and maintain fire-safe vegetation around structures and roadways, enforce fire-safe standards, and create fuel breaks among other preventative measures. Additionally, new developments in “very high fire hazard severity zones” (VHFHSZ) are mandated to prepare Fire Protection Plans, ensuring comprehensive measures are in place to address wildfire hazards. These strategies represent the most effective wildfire hazard reduction measures available.
However, to eliminate the risks associated with wildfires, it would be necessary to prohibit development in areas designated as VHFHSZ or in the WUI. Prohibiting new development in this portion of San Carlos is not feasible or practical because the City has a responsibility to meet other obligations under different State laws, including increasing the number and type of housing available and allowing reconstruction of homes burned by wildfires. Therefore, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond the policies and plans discussed above. Given the potential unknown impacts related to future development under the proposed project, impacts are identified
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 534
as significant and unavoidable. This conclusion does not rule out the possibility of finding lessthan-significant impacts at the project-specific level.
Draft EIR Project Alternatives
The Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset that are designed to reduce its significant environmental impacts and feasibly attain most of the proposed project objectives. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative involves weighing and balancing all of the environmental resource areas by the City.
The following alternatives to the proposed project were considered and analyzed in detail:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative presents the No Project scenario. Accordingly, under this alternative, the 2045 General Plan Reset would not be adopted or implemented, and further development in the city would continue to be subject to existing policies, regulations, development standards, and land use designations under the existing General Plan 2030. • Alternative 2: Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative. This alternative would include development in the pipeline projects plus 50 percent of the remaining non-residential buildout included in the proposed project.
The analysis in the Draft EIR concludes that the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative would result in lessened environmental impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, and tribal cultural resources, and would not result in greater impacts for any resource categories.
However, due to the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout not fully achieving all the objectives for the 2045 General Plan Reset, City staff is not recommending this alternative. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (included in Attachment 3 ) includes the social, legal, technological and environmental benefits of adopting the 2045 General Plan Reset project.
Summary of Final EIR Findings
As required by CEQA, the City released the Draft EIR for public comments for a 45-day public comment period. The Final EIR addresses the comments received during the public comment period and includes a response to public and agency comments (Refer to Chapter 5 of Final EIR included in Attachment 1 for response to comments).
As part of the Final EIR, the key changes to the Draft EIR were made to the following chapters:
▪ Biological Resources – Added references about the Crotch’s Bumblebee and the dusky footed woodrat and identified that their ranges are within the EIR Study Area. ▪ Geology and Soils - Added narrative about liquefaction potential and lateral spreading as a result of fault rupture and how this is a possibility in the EIR Study Area. ▪ Hydrology and Water Quality – Added narrative about Senate Bill 272 and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 535
Plan.
▪ Transportation – Added narrative about the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City also hosted stakeholder group meetings for public agencies, community-based organizations, and economic interest groups. The City shared project updates on the City’s project webpage and through City’s newsletters, e-news and social media channels.
The information about the proposed General Plan amendments, EIR release and associated public meetings was shared with the community through the channels noted below. • Project webpage at: www.cityofsancarlos.org/2045GeneralPlanReset • City E-news
• Good Living Newsletter
• Council Newsletter
• City’s social media channels (Facebook and X)
• Flyers at the City Hall
• Printed copy of documents at the Development Services Counter and the San Carlos Library
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The public notice for City Council public hearing for the General Plan amendments and Final EIR was published in the local newspaper (Attachment 10). Email notices were also sent to local agencies, stakeholders, and tribal representatives identified by the National American Heritage Commission. The documents are also posted on the City’s webpage at:
www.cityofsancarlos.org/2045GeneralPlanReset.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council decides to certify the EIR and adopt the 2045 General Plan Reset project as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the associated resolutions are attached for City Council’s consideration.
1. Resolution for Certification of the EIR (Attachment 1) which includes – • Exhibit A – Draft EIR including Appendices
• Exhibit B – Final EIR including Appendices
• Exhibit C – Findings of Fact
• Exhibit D – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2. Resolution for Adoption of General Plan amendments (Attachment 2) which includes - • Exhibit A – General Plan elements with tracked amendments • Exhibit B – Glossary of elements amended with page references • Exhibit C – Summary of General Plan policy and action items amendments After the City Council certifies the EIR and adopts the proposed General Plan amendments as part of the 2045 General Plan reset project, the City will issue a Notice of Determination, which is a brief notice advising the public of the project’s approval and the environmental review process.
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 536
The City will file the EIR with the State Clearinghouse and with the County Clerk within 5 days of project adoption pursuant to CEQA.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the 2045 General Plan Reset’s Final EIR and a Resolution adopting the amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element; or
2. Do not adopt the Resolutions; or
3. Provide staff with an alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution for certification of FEIR
Exhibit A – Draft EIR including Appendices
Exhibit B – Final EIR including Appendices
Exhibit C - Findings of Fact
Exhibit D - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2. Resolution for Adoption of General Plan Amendments
Exhibit A - General Plan with tracked Amendments
Exhibit B – Glossary of elements amended with page references Exhibit C - Summary of General Plan Policy and Action Items Amendment
3. PTC Resolution PTC2025-05
4. PTC Resolution PTC2025-06
5. Notes from Planning and Transportation Commission meeting of May 5, 202
6. Staff Report and Attachments for the City Council Study Session of February 24, 2025
7. Market Demand Study
8. Traffic Operations Report (Level of Service or LOS analysis)
9. Public comments received on NOP, Draft EIR, public hearings, study session, and stakeholder meetings as of May 16, 2025.
10. Public Notice – proof of newspaper publication
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 537
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET PROJECT.
WHEREAS, in July 2023 the City Council of the City of San Carlos approved a professional services agreement with PlaceWorks for consulting services to prepare an update to the 2030 General Plan and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), altogether referred to as the “2045 General Plan Reset Project”, to reset the development projections to the year 2045 for citywide commercial, office, industrial and residential uses in response to the continued development interest in the City’s East Side and two new specific plans underway in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the revised development projections to the year 2045 to inform the General Plan update and on June 3, 2024 released a Notice of Preparation of EIR and solicited public input from June 3, 2024, to July 3, 2024 on the scope of EIR; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2024, the City conducted a Public Hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regular meeting to present the development projections and solicit input on the scope of the environmental review of the project; and WHEREAS, the City conducted stakeholder group meetings between September 2024 and October 2024 to solicit input on the project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a request from the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe on the scope of environmental review, a meeting was held on September 25, 2024 to receive their input; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan and Draft EIR were prepared for the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset Project and circulated for a 45-day public review from January 17, 2025, to March 3, 2025 to solicit agency and public input on the analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the project and amendments to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2025, the City conducted a public hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regular meeting to present the proposed General Plan amendments and findings of the Draft EIR and solicit input from the public and Planning and Transportation Commission on the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the City Council held a study session to review the proposed General Plan amendments and Draft EIR and provided comments to staff; and WHEREAS, the 2045 General Plan Reset includes amendments to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element of the General Plan and the Draft EIR (Exhibit A) and Final EIR (Exhibit B) which together constitute the EIR for the project; and WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) presented herein address the environmental effects associated with the Project that are described and analyzed within the EIR. These Findings have been made
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 538
2 pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093; and WHEREAS, Further, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable environmental effects that could result from the implementation of the project. Those effects are related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and wildfire. Since potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project were identified, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), on May 5, 2025, the City of San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. PTC2025-05 recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset project; make findings relating to significant impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED BY THE SAN CARLOS CITY COUNCIL THAT:
1. The above recitals and findings are hereby incorporated by this reference and are hereby approved.
2. Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the EIR for this project, as well as the supporting administrative record, the City hereby makes the findings set forth herein pursuant to, and in accordance with, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.
3. Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant
The subject program-level EIR is intended to serve as a public information and disclosure document identifying and analyzing those environmental impacts resulting from the project that are expected to be significant and describing mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts and increase beneficial effects. Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the EIR, it was determined that the Project would not result in a potential significant effect on the environment with respect to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, parks and recreation, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, no further findings are required for these subject areas.
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 539
3 4. Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Environmental Quality Public Resources Code 21081 and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require that the City balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefit of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining to approve a project. And if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effect, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.”
Potential significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and wildfire were identified for the project. The Findings of Fact are included in Exhibit C.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council of the City of San Carlos adopt and make the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the 2045 General Plan Reset and the anticipated benefits of the proposed project.
CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable, and the agency must state the specific reasons to support the action in a “statement of overriding considerations” supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines §15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project in connection with approval of the proposed project. The City Council finds that even with mitigation, implementation of the project carries with it significant and unavoidable environmental effects, as identified in the EIR and summarized below.
Adoption of the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
Impact AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within the proposed project's buildout horizon could generate emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin's nonattainment designations.
Impact AQ-2.2: Operation of development projects under the proposed project could generate operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) regional significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Impact AQ-3: Construction emissions associated with future development projects could expose air quality-sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) project-level and cumulative significance thresholds.
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 540
4 Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed project could exceed the greenhouse (GHG) emissions threshold of no net increase from existing conditions and would therefore not make substantial progress toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under Senate Bill (SB) 32 or the carbon neutrality goal under Assembly Bill (AB) 1279.
Impact TRAN-2: The proposed project could exceed the City’s VMT significance criteria by generating VMT per service, per capita, and per employee that exceeds a threshold of 15 percent less than the regional average and by increasing total countywide VMT.
Impact WILD-2: Future development during the buildout horizon of the proposed project could increase population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfire-prone areas, thereby exacerbating wildfire risks.
Impact WILD-5: Future development during the buildout horizon of the proposed project could, in combination with other surrounding and future projects in the State Responsibility Areas, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), or WildlandUrban Interface (WUI), result in cumulative impacts associated with the exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors.
Overriding Considerations:
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council carefully consider each significant, unavoidable project impact in reaching its decision to approve the proposed project. Even with mitigation, the City Council should recognize that implementation of the proposed project could carry with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as identified in the EIR. The City Council should specifically find that, to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts for the proposed project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, that outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impacts and support approval of the proposed project. Any one of these benefits, as set forth below, is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits is in the record as a whole.
The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the possibility of the significant and unavoidable effects. The City finds that each of the proposed project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the EIR and other information in the administrative record.
Economic Benefits:
1. The proposed project would support local shops, businesses, and services.
2. The proposed project would support and incentivize property investment and redevelopment, which would increase property values and revenue to support City services. This process would benefit the local shops, businesses, services, employees, and residents.
3. By extending the General Plan horizon to 2045, the proposed project would provide comprehensive environmental review for continued redevelopment and
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 541
5 business development in the city, allowing for more efficient project-level environmental review.
Legal Benefits:
1. The proposed project would ensure that the City’s General Plan is legally adequate and addresses topics required by State law.
Social Benefits:
2. The proposed project would plan for adequate housing capacity to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) now and into the future.
3. The proposed project would encourage new businesses that residents need and enjoy, while fostering a sense of place within the community where residents and visitors can socialize.
4. The proposed project would promote the creation of guidance for the protection of areas of archeological sensitivity.
Technological Benefits:
5. The proposed project would guide redevelopment in a manner consistent with upto-date California Building Code Standards, Energy Efficiency Standards, and Cal Green requirements.
Environmental Benefits:
6. The proposed project would promote an update to the Climate Action Plan to meet the GHG reduction targets.
7. The proposed project would protect open spaces and natural habitats, increase the planting and maintenance of street trees, maintain the City’s urban forest, invest in natural infrastructure, and expand access to parks and open space.
8. The proposed project would encourage a modal shift to reduce vehicular trip generation from new development.
9. The proposed project would continue to implement the City's adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan adopted on June 9th, 2020 and update the Master Plan as needed.
10. The proposed project would continue to implement the City's adopted East Side Innovation District Vision Plan adopted on October 25, 2021.
11. The proposed project would implement and enforce the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and support Transportation Demand Management measures in new development to reduce traffic impacts.
12. The proposed project would establish clear actions to protect the community from flooding, wildfires, and earthquakes by reinforcing the City’s emergency readiness and response capabilities, increasing power system resilience, maintaining a state-of-the art emergency notification system, providing community training programs, and planning ahead for disaster recovery.
13. The proposed project would require that major new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.
14. The proposed project would continue to support trail connections as identified in the City’s Potential Trail Connections Plan.
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 542
6 a. As referenced in the Findings (Exhibit C), a MMRP has been prepared for the project and is to be adopted concurrently with these findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. The MMRP is a separate stand-alone document that will be used by the City to track compliance with the project mitigation measures. The MMRP (Exhibit D). will remain available for public review during the compliance period, which includes pre-construction coordination, construction, and post-construction documentation for future development projects.
7. Adoption
a. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos’s 2045 General Plan Reset project (Exhibit A and B). * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibits:
A. Draft EIR
B. Final EIR
C. Findings of Fact
D. MMRP
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 543
Public Review Draft
SCH: 2024060037 | January 2025
2045 General Plan
Reset Draft EIR
for the City of San Carlos
12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 544
Public Review Draft
SCH: 2024060037 | January 2025
2045 General Plan
Reset Draft EIR
for the City of San Carlos
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.PlaceWorks.com
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
In Association With:
Kittleson and Associates
RSG
W-Trans
Page intentionally left blank
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Environmental Procedures ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project ............................................................................... 1-4
1.3 Summary of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..................................................... 1-4
1.4 Issues to Be Resolved ..................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Areas of Controversy ..................................................................................................... 1-5
1.6 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 1-5
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 EIR Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.3 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Environmental Review For Future Development Projects And Activities ................ 2-4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Location and Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 EIR Study Area ................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.4 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Project Components ..................................................................................................... 3-4
3.6 Intended Uses of this EIR .............................................................................................. 3-12
3.7 Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................... 3-12 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 4.10-1
4.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 4.13-1 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii JANUARY 2025
4.14 Public Services ........................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.15 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.18 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 4.18-1 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5-2
5.4 Overview of Project Alternatives ................................................................................. 5-3
5.5 No Project Alternative (Current General Plan) .......................................................... 5-5
5.6 Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative ....................................................... 5-15
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative......................................................................... 5-25 CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ........................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Growth Inducement ...................................................................................................... 6-3
6.4 Significant and Irreversible Changes ........................................................................... 6-5 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Lead Agency ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Persons Consulted ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Consultants ..................................................................................................................... 7-2
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix C: Noise Data
Appendix D: Transportation Data
Appendix E: Proposed General Plan Amendments
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional and Local Vicinity Map ................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-2 EIR Study Area ................................................................................................................ 3-6 Figure 3-3 General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................................ 3-11 Figure 4-1 Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas ............................................... 4-7 Figure 4.2-1 BAAQMD Overburdened Communities Map ....................................................... 4.2-23 Figure 4.2-2 CES4 Indicator – Cumulative Score by Percentile ................................................ 4.2-24 Figure 4.2-3 BAAQMD Siting Recommendations ....................................................................... 4.2-25 Figure 4.2-4 CES4 Indicator – Pollution Burden by Percentile ................................................... 4.2-26 Figure 4.2-5 CES4 Indicator – Diesel Particulate Matter by Percentile .................................... 4.2-27 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation and Habitat Types ................................................................................. 4.3-9 Figure 4.3-2 Special-Status Animals and Critical Habitat .......................................................... 4.3-14 Figure 4.3-3 Special-Status Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities ................................... 4.3-15 Figure 4.3-4 Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 4.3-17 Figure 4.9-1 San Carlos Watersheds ............................................................................................ 4.9-14 Figure 4.9-2 FEMA Flood Zones ..................................................................................................... 4.9-19 Figure 4.9-3 Dam Inundation Zone .............................................................................................. 4.9-20 Figure 4.9-4 Sea Level Rise 2050 ................................................................................................... 4.9-22 Figure 4.9-5 Sea Level Rise 2100 ................................................................................................... 4.9-23 Figure 4.17-1 Water Suppliers ....................................................................................................... 4.17-14 Figure 4.18-1 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones ................................................................... 4.18-12 Figure 4.18-2 Wildland-Urban Interface Areas ........................................................................... 4.18-13 Figure 4.18-3 Evacuation Routes .................................................................................................. 4.18-17 Figure 4.18-4 Evacuation-Constrained Areas ............................................................................. 4.18-18 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv JANUARY 2025
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 1-6 Table 3-4 General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................................ 3-10 Table 4-1 Existing Baseline Conditions (2024) .............................................................................. 4-4 Table 4.2-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary .......................................................... 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants ....................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ........................................................................................................................... 4.2-19 Table 4.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................. 4.2-20 Table 4.2-5 Existing Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory, EIR Study Area ....... 4.2-28 Table 4.2-6 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds ................................................................................................................... 4.2-30 Table 4.2-7 Control Measures from the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.................................. 4.2-38 Table 4.2-8 EIR Study Area Project Generated Total Daily VMT .............................................. 4.2-46 Table 4.2-9 Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the EIR Study Area....... 4.2-46 Table 4.3-1 CNDDB Plant Occurrences in the EIR Study Area ................................................. 4.3-10 Table 4.3-2 CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area ............................................. 4.3-11 Table 4.5-1 Estimated Existing Electricity and Natural Gas Demand ..................................... 4.5-18 Table 4.5-2 Existing Operation-Related Annual Fuel Consumption ........................................ 4.5-19 Table 4.5-3 Year 2045 Forecast Electricity Consumption ......................................................... 4.5-21 Table 4.5-4 Year 2045 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption ..................................................... 4.5-23 Table 4.5-5 Year 2045 Forecast Fuel Consumption ................................................................... 4.5-24 Table 4.7-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 .............................................................................................................................. 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California ........................................................ 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans .......................... 4.7-10 Table 4.7-4 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory in the EIR Study Area .................. 4.7-21 Table 4.7-5 EIR Study Area GHG Emissions Forecast ................................................................. 4.7-28 Table 4.7-6 Consistency Analysis with the City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan ....................................................................................................... 4.7-33 Table 4.8-1 Hazardous Material Sites in the EIR Study Area ..................................................... 4.8-18 Table 4.9-2 Listed Impaired Water Bodies in San Carlos .......................................................... 4.9-17 Table 4.9-3 Construction Best Management Practices ........................................................... 4.9-26 Table 4.11-1 Typical Noise Levels .................................................................................................. 4.11-6 Table 4.11-2 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels ........................................................ 4.11-7 Table 4.11-3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ............................................................... 4.11-8 Table 4.11-4 FTA Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ......................................................... 4.11-9 Table 4.11-5 Caltrans' Vibration Threshold Criteria for Building Damage .............................. 4.11-11 Table 4.11-6 Caltrans' Vibration Threshold Criteria for Human Response .............................. 4.11-11 Table 4.11-7 Noise Exposure—Land Requirements and Limitations ....................................... 4.11-14 Table 4.11-8 Existing Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL ............................................................................ 4.11-16 Table 4.11-9 San Carlos Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ......... 4.11-20 Table 4.11-10 Non-Transportation Noise Standards .................................................................... 4.11-21 Table 4.11-11 Typical Construction equipment Noise Emission Levels ..................................... 4.11-22 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS v
Table 4.11-12 Project-Related Increase In Cumulative Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL .................... 4.11-25 Table 4.11-14 Reference Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................... 4.11-28 Table 4.13-1 Total Population, 2014 to 2024 ................................................................................ 4.13-5 Table 4.13-2 Housing Units, 2014 to 2024 ...................................................................................... 4.13-6 Table 4.13-3 San Mateo County Regional Growth Projections, 2015 to 2050 ......................... 4.13-6 Table 4.13-4 San Carlos Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................... 4.13-7 Table 4.15-1 VMT per Service Population .................................................................................. 4.15-18 Table 4.15-2 VMT per Capita ....................................................................................................... 4.15-18 Table 4.15-3 VMT per Employee ................................................................................................. 4.15-19 Table 4.15-4 County VMT per Employee .................................................................................... 4.15-19 Table 4.17-1 Cal Water Demands: 2020 to 2045 (AFY) ............................................................. 4.17-15 Table 4.17-2 Cal Water Supplies: 2020 to 2045 (AFY) ............................................................... 4.17-16 Table 4.17-3 Cal Water Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 TO 2045 (AFY) .................. 4.17-16 Table 4.17-4 MPWD Water Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2045 (MG) ............. 4.17-18 Table 4.17-5 Increase in Water Demand in Cal Water-MPS Service Area (2045) ................. 4.17-21 Table 4.17-6 Cal Water-MPS Projected Future Water Demand (2045) (AFY) ........................ 4.17-21 Table 4.17-7 Increase in Water Demand in MPWD Service Area (2045)................................ 4.17-23 Table 4.17-8 MPWD Water Supply and Demand (2045) .......................................................... 4.17-24 Table 4.17-9 Proposed Project WasteWater Demand Increase ............................................. 4.17-34 Table 4.17-10 Landfill Capacity .................................................................................................... 4.17-43 Table 4.17-11 Increase in Solid Waste Generation Rates (2045) ............................................... 4.17-44 Table 4.17-12 Year 2045 Forecast Electricity Consumption ....................................................... 4.17-62 Table 4.17-13 Year 2045 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption ................................................... 4.17-62 Table 5-1 2045 Development Projections for the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives (Net Change) ........................................................................................... 5-4 Table 5-2 Comparison of Impacts of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives ........... 5-5 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-1
Executive Summary
This chapter presents an overview of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, hereinafter referred to as “proposed project.” This executive summary also provides a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project, identifies issues to be resolved, areas of controversy, and conclusions of the analysis in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). For a complete description of the proposed project, see Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. For a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project, see Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR.
This Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and State government decision-makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA1 and the State CEQA Guidelines2 to determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development could have any significant impacts on the environment. The City of San Carlos (City), as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical reports. Information for this Draft EIR was obtained from discussions with public service agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation).
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This Draft EIR has been prepared to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project. The main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are:
To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental impacts of proposed activities.
To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000–21177. 2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-2 JANUARY 2025
To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.
To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. To enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in the CEQA statute and in the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings3 concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations4 if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
1.1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Executive Summary. Summarizes environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed project, describes recommended mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts with and without mitigation. Chapter 2: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the Draft EIR document. Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed project in detail, including the characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed action. Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Organized into 18 subchapters corresponding to the environmental resource categories identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, this chapter provides a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published and by referencing historic conditions that are supported with substantial evidence, from both a local and regional perspective. Additionally, this chapter provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce the impacts to less than significant where possible, and to reduce their magnitude or significance when impacts cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The environmental setting included in each subchapter provides baseline physical conditions to provide a context, which the lead agency uses to determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Each subchapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to determine if 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-3
a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project; and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Chapter 5: Alternatives. Considers alternatives to the proposed project, including the CEQA-required “No Project Alternative” and “environmentally superior alternative.” Chapter 6: CEQA-Required Conclusions and Findings. Discusses growth inducement, cumulative impacts, unavoidable significant effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed project.
Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project. Appendices: The appendices for this document contain the following supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix C: Noise Data
Appendix D: Transportation Data
Appendix E: Proposed General Plan Amendments
1.1.2 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT EIR
As described in the CEQA Guidelines, different types of EIRs are used for varying situations and intended uses. Because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed project and the permitting, planning, and development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions for implementation, this Draft EIR has been prepared as a program EIR for the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Once the program EIR has been certified, subsequent projects such as development activities or capital projects within the City of San Carlos must be evaluated to determine whether additional CEQA review is needed. However, where the program EIR addresses the 2045 General Plan Reset’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as is reasonably possible, later activities that are within scope of the 2045 General Plan Reset examined in the program EIR, may qualify for a streamlined environmental review process or may be exempt from environmental review. When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent activities.
5 If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR unless the activity qualifies for an exemption. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this program EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis to streamline future environmental review.
5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c] and CEQA streamlining provisions. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-4 JANUARY 2025
1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project would update the San Carlos 2030 General Plan to amend the future development projections.
The existing buildout capacity of General Plan 2030 would be amended and development projections for 2045 would be incorporated, thus moving the planning horizon forward by 15 years. Additionally, narrative text and specific policies and actions would be updated along with topics that are now required by State mandate or recent Citywide plans or regulations. Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the proposed project.
1.3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed project that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and feasibly attain most of the proposed project objectives. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative involves weighing and balancing all of the environmental resource areas by the City. The following alternatives to the proposed project were considered and analyzed in detail:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative presents the No Project scenario. Accordingly, under this alternative, the proposed project would not be adopted or implemented, and further development in the city would continue to be subject to existing policies, regulations, development standards, and land use designations under the existing General Plan 2030.
Alternative 2: Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative. This alternative would include the development in the pipeline projects plus 50 percent of the remaining non-residential buildout included in the proposed project.
Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR, includes a complete discussion of these alternatives. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
1.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of San Carlos, as lead agency, related to:
Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Whether the benefits of the proposed project override environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-5
Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the proposed project besides those goals, policies, or mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic objectives.
1.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The City issued an NOP on June 3, 2024. The CEQA-mandated 30-day scoping period for this EIR was between June 3, 2024, and July 3, 2024, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Following the issuance of the NOP , the City received seven comment letters from State agencies, local organizations, and municipalities.
The following is a discussion of issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review process. Though every concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this Draft EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but rather attempts to capture concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping process.
Biological Resources (regulatory requirements)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (cleanup sites)
Land Use and Planning (annexation)
Population and Housing (jobs/housing balance)
Public Services (schools and developer school impact fees) Transportation (regulatory requirements, local transportation analysis) Utilities and Service Systems (wastewater disposal)
1.6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in this Draft EIR and presents a summary of significant impacts and mitigation measures identified. For a complete description of potential impacts, including those where no mitigation measures are required, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18 of this Draft EIR.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
1-6 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
AESTHETICS
No significant impacts
AIR QUALITY
AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within
the buildout horizon of the proposed project would
generate emissions that would exceed the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
regional significance thresholds and cumulative
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
S AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current BAAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current BAAQMD Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions. At the time of preparation of this EIR, such practices include:
Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used.
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compact layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 1-7
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) and shall be verified by the City.
AQ-2.2: Operation of development projects under
the proposed project could generate operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD) regional
significance thresholds for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
S AQ-2.2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval.
The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.
If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs. Expanding bikeway networks.
Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards. Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems. Requiring all-electric buildings.
Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-emission alternatives. Implementing organics diversion programs.
Expanding urban tree planting.
SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
1-8 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
AQ-3: Construction emissions associated with future
development projects could expose air qualitysensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
project-level and cumulative significance thresholds.
S AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating dieselpowered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or Overburdened Community, as measured from the property line of the project site to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by BAAQMD (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence), the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions Electrifying warehousing docks
Requiring use of newer equipment
Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review.
SU
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 1-9
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
ENERGY
No significant impacts
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No significant impacts
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed project
would exceed the greenhouse (GHG) emissions
threshold of no net increase from existing conditions
and would therefore not make substantial progress
toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under
Senate Bill (SB) 32 or the carbon neutrality goal
under Assembly Bill (AB) 1279.
S GHG-1: The City of San Carlos shall prepare an update to its Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term GHG reduction goal set by AB 1279. The updated CMAP shall be completed within three years of certification of the General Plan EIR. The updated CMAP shall be updated every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the CMAP’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG reduction target(s), and the City shall amend the CMAP if it is not achieving such targets. The CMAP update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CMAP update.
The CMAP update shall include the following:
GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 of AB 1279.
Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the CMAP update:
Administration and Staffing
Finance and Budgeting
Timelines for Measure Implementation
Community Outreach and Education
Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
Tracking Tools
SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
1-10 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No significant impacts
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No significant impacts
LAND USE AND PLANNING
No significant impacts
NOISE
No significant impacts
PARKS AND RECREATION
No significant impacts
POPULATION AND HOUSING
No significant impacts
PUBLIC SERVICES
No significant impacts
TRANSPORTATION
TRAN-2: The proposed project could exceed the
City’s VMT significance criteria by generating VMT
per service, per capita, and per employee that
exceeds a threshold of 15 percent less than the
regional average and by increasing total countywide
VMT.
S TRAN-2: The City of San Carlos shall amend its Transportation Demand Management program (San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management) to increase the required trip reduction to the extent feasible.
SU
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No significant impacts
WILDFIRE
WILD-2: Future development during the buildout
horizon of the proposed project could increase
S None available. SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 1-11
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfireprone areas, thereby exacerbating wildfire risks.
WILD-5: Future development during the buildout
horizon of the proposed project could, in
combination with other surrounding and future
projects in the State Responsibility Areas, Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), or Wildland-Urban
Interface (WUI), result in cumulative impacts
associated with the exposure of project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope,
prevailing winds, or other factors.
S None available. SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-12 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 2-1
2. Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378[a], the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is considered a “project” subject to environmental review. The implementation is “an action [undertaken by a public agency] which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption and implementation of the 2045 General Plan Reset, herein referred to as the “proposed project.” This Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts. The Draft EIR also compares the development of the proposed project with the existing baseline condition that is described in detail in each section of Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR. The City of San Carlos (City) is the lead agency for the proposed project. This assessment is intended to inform the City’s decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the public-at-large of the nature of the proposed project and its potential effect on the environment.
2.1 PROPOSED ACTION
If approved by the San Carlos City Council, the proposed project would update the San Carlos 2030 General Plan to amend the future development projections. The proposed project also involves limited updates to the General Plan background text and policies. Proposed amendments to the General Plan policies and actions are presented in Appendix E, Proposed General Plan Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
Information within Appendix E does not include changes to the General Plan format, background information, or narrative language, which will be identified when the General Plan is released.
The existing buildout capacity of General Plan 2030 would be amended and regional forecasts for 2045 would be incorporated, thus moving the planning horizon forward by 15 years. Additionally, narrative text and specific policies and actions would be updated along with topics that are now required by State mandate or recent Citywide plans or regulations. Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the proposed project.
The environmental analysis in this Draft EIR assumes that the adoption and implementation of the proposed project would result in up to 8,300 new housing units, 15,620 new residents, 8,927,300 new non-residential square footage, and 26,530 new employees by 2045. See Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR for additional details on the proposed project. See Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR for a comparison of the potential environmental effects of the current General Plan 2030 and the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
INTRODUCTION
2-2 JANUARY 2025
2.2 EIR SCOPE
This Draft EIR is a program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed project.
This is in contrast to a project-level EIR, which is used to identify and analyze the potential impacts of site-specific construction and operation. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to prepare different types of EIRs for varying situations and intended uses. Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines states that program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria.
In this case, the proposed project that is the subject of this Draft EIR consists of long-term plans that would be implemented over time as policies guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the proposed project, and decisions about whether to move forward with development projects on individual properties will continue to be made by the property owner. Therefore, as a program EIR, it is not project specific and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed in the future under the 2045 General Plan Reset.
However, where the program EIR addresses the effects of the proposed project as specifically and comprehensively as is reasonably possible, later activities that are within the scope of the effects examined in the program EIR may qualify for a streamlined environmental review process or may be exempt from environmental review.1
When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent activities.2 If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR, unless the activity qualifies for an exemption. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this program EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis to streamline future environmental review.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
2.3.1 DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that a program EIR would be required. In compliance with CEQA Section 21080.4, the City circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly known as Office of Planning and Research) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on June 3, 2024, for a 30-day review period. A public scoping meeting was held on June 17, 2024, at the City Hall. The NOP and scoping process solicited comments regarding the scope of the Draft 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) and CEQA streamlining provisions. 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3) and CEQA streamlining provisions. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLO S
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 2-3
EIR from responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, of this Draft EIR contains the NOP and the comments received by the City in response to the NOP.
This Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting January 17, 2025, and ending March 3, 2025. During the comment period, the public is invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR via mail or email to the City of San Carlos Community Development Department, Advance Planning Division by 5:00 p.m. on March 3, 2025. Comments should be submitted as follows:
Written: Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, California, 94070
Phone: (650) 802-4350
Email: [email protected] with “2045 General Plan Reset EIR” as the subject line.
2.3.2 FINAL EIR
Upon completion of the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses to each comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. A Final EIR will then be prepared, which contains all of the comments received, responses to comments raising environmental issues, and any changes to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will then be presented to the San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission where a public hearing will be held for public comments on the Final EIR. During this public hearing, recommendations will also be considered for certification of the Final EIR. Following the public hearing, the Final EIR will be presented to City Council for consideration of the certification as the environmental document for the proposed project. All persons who commented on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for February 3, 2025.
All responses to comments submitted on the Draft EIR by agencies will be provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. The City Council will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented in the EIR. The EIR will need to be certified as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA by the City prior to making a decision to approve or deny the proposed project.
Public input is encouraged at all public hearings before the City.
If the City Council certifies the EIR, it may then consider action on the proposed project. If approved, the City Council would adopt and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and may also require other feasible mitigation measures.
In some cases, the City Council may find that certain mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City to implement, or that no feasible mitigation measures have been identified for a given significant impact. In that case, the City Council would have to adopt a statement of overriding 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
INTRODUCTION
2-4 JANUARY 2025
considerations that determines that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable, significant effects on the environment.
2.3.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
CEQA Section 21081.6 requires that the lead agency adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to CEQA Section 21081. Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. If mitigation measures are required, the MMRP for the proposed project will be completed congruently as part of the Final EIR process.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
CEQA includes several provisions to streamline the environmental review of qualified projects based on several factors. These include where environmental review has already occurred (e.g., a program-level EIR), which could apply to future development on the project site. As a program EIR, this document and the mitigation measures presented herein will be used as a guide for implementing the proposed project. This program EIR will also be used as a base resource for reviewing future development projects.
As discussed in Section 2.2, EIR Scope, later activities consistent with the proposed project will be reviewed to determine whether they are within the scope of this program EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), for future activities that do not require subsequent environmental review, the City can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project analyzed in this program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d) provides for simplifying the preparation of environmental documents by incorporating by reference analyses and discussions in the program EIR.
Where an EIR has been prepared or certified for a program or plan, the environmental review for a later activity consistent with the program or plan should be limited to effects that were not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR or that are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance.
If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR, unless the activity qualifies for an exemption. This document will assist in guiding the assessment of projects and provide environmental review tiering, where appropriate.
The CEQA concept of “tiering” refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program-level EIR, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLO S
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 2-5
When tiering from the program EIR, the environmental analysis for a future project implementing the proposed project would rely on the program EIR for the following:
1. A discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas;
2. Overall growth-related issues;
3. Issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the program EIR for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis;
4. Assessment of cumulative impacts; and
5. Mitigation measures adopted and incorporated into the proposed project. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
INTRODUCTION
2-6 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 3-1
Project Description
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the proposed update to the City of San Carlos 2030 General Plan, hereinafter referred to as the 2045 General Plan Reset or “proposed project.” This project description has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).1 The proposed project includes new development associated with implementation of the proposed project. The potential buildout under the proposed project is discussed in Section 3.5.2, 2045 Development Projections, of this chapter.
This Draft EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA, which requires that State and local public agencies analyze proposed projects to determine potential impacts on the environment and disclose any such impacts.2 The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project. Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR provides a programmatic analysis of the environmental impacts associated with projected development under the proposed project by 2045. Program-level environmental review documents are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria.3 The proposed project that is the subject of this EIR consists of a long-term plan that will be implemented as a policy document guiding future development activities and City actions. Because this is a program-level EIR, this document does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual development projects that may be allowed under the 2045 General Plan Reset. Future projects may require separate environmental review.
This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the EIR Study Area, as well as the project objectives, the principal project components, and required permits and approvals.
3.1 BACKGROUND
Every city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the county or city and, in some cases, land outside the city or county boundaries.4 It is the community’s overarching policy document that defines a vision for future change and sets the “ground rules” for locating and designing new projects, supporting the local economy, conserving resources, improving public services and safety, and fostering community health.
The General Plan, which includes a vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and actions, functions as the City’s primary land use regulatory tool. It is San Carlos’ constitution for future change and must be used 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a).
3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.
4 California Government Code Section 65300.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 JANUARY 2025
as the basis for all planning-related decisions made by City staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council.
Pursuant to State law, mandatory elements for all jurisdictions are: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety; organized in any way that best suits the city or county.
Typically, general plans cover a time frame or forecast of 15 to 20 years.
The existing San Carlos 2030 General Plan (General Plan 2030) was adopted in 2009 and included a horizon year of 2030. Six elements of the General Plan 2030 (housing, safety, land use, circulation and scenic highways, environmental management, and noise) were amended in 2023. This focused update is necessary to respond to continued interest in new development throughout the city, including housing, and extend the planning horizon to 2045. The 2045 General Plan Reset project includes the elements required by State law,5 organized into chapters as follows: 3) Land Use; 4) Housing; 5) Circulation and Scenic Highways; 6) Environmental Management; 7) Parks and Recreation; 8) Environmental Safety and Public Services; and 9) Noise. Chapters 1 and 2 contain the Introduction and Vision Statement, respectively. At this time, two specific plans are currently underway in the City of San Carlos. These specific plans will have a horizon year of 2045; the anticipated amount of new development under the specific plans has been incorporated into the development projections for this 2045 General Plan Reset project, and will be analyzed as part of this EIR. The specific plans will be acted upon separately.
General Plan Housing Elements are required to be updated every eight years to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and comply with State law. To meet the State deadline, San Carlos’ 6th cycle Housing Element was adopted in 2023 and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in April 2024; this Housing Element was evaluated under a separate EIR (State Clearinghouse #2021120442). The 6th cycle Housing Element is not part of the proposed project analyzed in this EIR.
All plans, including precise plans, specific plans, master plans, and zoning in the city must be consistent with the General Plan. Similarly, all land-use development approvals and environmental decisions made by the City Council must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan itself, however, does not approve or entitle any development project. Property owners have control over when they wish to propose a project, and final development approval decisions are made on a project-by-project basis by City staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission, other City boards and commissions as appropriate, and/or the City Council. Accordingly, this Draft EIR addresses only what the City foresees at this time. Future projects that exceed the proposed buildout or boundaries addressed in this Draft EIR will be subject to additional environmental review, as required pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
5 Pursuant to State law, a general plan must contain mandatory elements, but has complete autonomy for how they format and organize the elements. Mandatory topics include: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-3
3.2 LOCATION AND SETTING
San Carlos is in eastern San Mateo County. It is generally bounded by Belmont to the north, the San Francisco Bay to the east, Redwood City to the south, and Interstate 280 (I-280) to the west. See Figure 3-1, Regional and Local Vicinity Map. The city is accessed by US Highway 101 and State Route (SR) 82 as well as one Caltrain transit station. I-280 also provides regional access to the community and is located just west of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). San Carlos includes a range of urban and suburban land uses, including a variety of residential neighborhoods, parks, and commercial and office areas. San Carlos’ built-out environment is largely consistent with the built-out environments of adjacent communities.
3.2.1 CITY LIMIT
The San Carlos city limit encloses an area of approximately 5.4 square miles. The City has primary authority over land use and other governmental actions within this area. Certain unincorporated areas outside of the city limit may still have a San Carlos mailing address and may share certain services with the city. This includes the three unincorporated neighborhoods of Devonshire, Palomar Park, and Pulgas Ridge, which are not within San Carlos’ city limit, but are within San Carlos’ SOI.
3.2.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The SOI is a boundary that identifies land that the City may potentially annex in the future, and for which urban services, if available, could be provided upon annexation. Under State law, the SOI is established by the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) with input from the City. The purpose of the SOI is to identify areas where urban development could be accommodated in the future in an orderly and efficient manner. The San Carlos SOI is approximately 1.3 square miles in size.
Unincorporated areas adjacent to the San Carlos city limit fall under the planning, land use, and regulatory jurisdiction of San Mateo County. While the City does not have jurisdiction over land within the SOI, designating a SOI sets precedence for ensuring that the City is able to comment on development proposed for lands within the SOI prior to annexation and begin considering future development of the area. The City does not propose to annex any areas within the SOI as part of the proposed project. Any future annexations that may occur within the 2045 planning horizon would be analyzed under separate environmental review.
3.3 EIR STUDY AREA
The State of California encourages cities to look beyond their borders when undertaking the sort of comprehensive planning required for a general plan. The City only has jurisdiction over land that is within the city limit. However, the City maintains a role in land use decisions in its SOI. Therefore, the EIR Study Area consists of all land within the City of San Carlos’ city limit and SOI. These areas are shown on Figure 3-2, EIR Study Area. See Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, for a description of the cumulative 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4 JANUARY 2025
impact scope for this EIR, which may include lands within the Study Area and beyond, depending on the environmental topic being analyzed.
3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to plan for the growth of San Carlos over a 20-year time horizon and to:
Allow for a mix of development to support the City’s economic resiliency and to sustain a robust local economy.
Preserve, protect, and promote industrial, commercial, and office uses to maintain a thriving ecosystem of local businesses and to provide for local jobs. Provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of a diverse community, as outlined in the 2023-2031 Housing Element and for future Housing Element cycles.
Make minor updates to the 2030 General Plan to reference recent City initiatives, plans, or new State regulations.
3.5 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The primary focus of the proposed project is to update the San Carlos 2030 General Plan to amend the future development projections. The proposed project also involves limited updates to the General Plan background text and policies.
The draft 2045 General Plan Reset is available for public review concurrent with this Draft EIR on the City’s website at the following link: www.CityofSanCarlos.org/2045GeneralPlanReset
3.5.1 PLANNING PROCESS
The City initiated the 2045 General Plan Reset planning process in 2023. There are currently a variety of planning efforts being undertaken in the city, as well as ongoing development projects. As described above, of these planning efforts, two specific plans are the Northeast Area Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, which are being prepared concurrently with the proposed project and are expected to be adopted following adoption of the 2045 General Plan Reset. An EIR is being prepared separately for the Northeast Area Specific Plan. Meanwhile, the Downtown Specific Plan is designed to be consistent with the proposed project and an EIR Addendum would be prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan after certification of the EIR for this proposed project. Both Specific Plans include buildout projections that are incorporated into the citywide buildout capacity for the proposed project. These buildout numbers are available in Section 3.5.2, 2045 Development Projections.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7
3.5.2 2045 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The 2045 General Plan Reset considers development projections between the time period of 2024 and 2045, which represents an approximate 20-year buildout horizon. Under Section 15064(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, “In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project.” The projections represent the City’s estimation of “reasonably foreseeable” development that could occur over the next 20 years under the proposed project and are used as the basis for the EIR’s environmental assessment.
The projections do not presume that every parcel is developed to the maximum level allowed under the 2045 General Plan Reset. Based on historical development patterns, it is unlikely that the maximum theoretical buildout allowed under the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset would occur because not every parcel that is allowed to develop within that timeframe will develop, and not every parcel that develops will be built out to the maximum allowed under the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset.
Therefore, the maximum theoretical buildout is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the adoption of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset. Instead, this EIR analyzes a conservative, but reasonably foreseeable, amount of growth based on development trends, market demand forecasts, and housing obligations under State law. Horizon year (2045) projections within the EIR Study Area are shown in Table 3-1, Proposed 2045 General Plan Reset Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area.
As shown in Table 3-1, the City expects approximately 26,530 net new jobs in the EIR Study Area by 2045, which correlates to approximately 8,927,300 square feet of net new non-residential development.
The buildout projections in Table 3-1 include growth associated with current development projects, buildout of the Downtown Specific Plan and Northeast Area Specific Plan, development of the sites in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory, development of ADUs and units under Senate Bill TABLE 3-1 PROPOSED 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Existing Conditions
(2024)
Projected Net Change
(2024-2045)
2045 General Plan Reset Buildout
(2045)
Category City SOI Total City SOI Total City SOI Total
Housing Units 12,460 790 13,250 8,300 0 8,300 20,770 790 21,560 Population 28,890 1,940 30,830 15,620 0 15,620 44,510 1,940 46,450 NonResidential
Square
Footage a
9,776,200 100,000 9,876,200 8,927,300 0 8,927,300 18,703,500 100,000 18,803,500 Jobs b 20,410 370 20,780 26,530 0 26,530 46,950 370 47,320 Notes: SOI = sphere of influence
a. Non-residential square footage includes commercial, office, research and development (R&D), and industrial square footage and does not include public uses.
b. Job numbers include commercial, office, R&D, industrial, and other jobs, including public jobs.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 JANUARY 2025
9 as allowed under State housing law, and estimated future housing development under future RHNA cycles.
6 The majority of new housing in San Carlos is expected on infill parcels near Downtown, along the El Camino Real corridor, along Old County Road between Holly Street and Terminal Avenue, and along East San Carlos Avenue. These units will mostly be multiple family residences, such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums. New detached residences will likely occur as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and as rebuilt or remodeled homes in existing single-family neighborhoods.
Most of the commercial growth is expected to occur in the Downtown area. Most of the office growth is expected in the Downtown and Northeast areas. Research and development and industrial growth would be limited to the east side area of San Carlos, including the Northeast Area.
The buildout numbers in Table 3-1 are different than those represented in Table 3-3 of the 2045 General Plan Reset both because, unlike the General Plan, the development projections for the EIR include the SOI and because the 2045 General Plan Reset considers development projects already in the pipeline as part of the existing conditions, whereas the EIR considers them as part of net new development. As shown in Table 3-2, Projected Net Change, development projects already in the pipeline and anticipated under the Downtown Specific Plan and Northeast Area Specific Plan constitute a substantial amount of the projected development under the 2045 General Plan Reset.
Table 3-3, Non-Residential Square Footage Projections, provides a summary of the land uses included in the non-residential square footage buildout projections under existing and future conditions in the EIR Study Area.
6 Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval for housing developments with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, and the subdivision of parcels in a single-family zone into two parcels.
TABLE 3-2 PROJECTED NET CHANGE
Category
Net Change from
Pipeline
Development
Projects
Net Change from
Downtown
Specific Plan
Net Change from
Northeast Area
Specific Plan
Additional Net
Change
Total Projected
Net Change
(2024-2045)
Housing Units 242 1,565 1,890 4,063 8,300
Population 462 2,990 3,611 8,557 15,620
Non-Residential
Square Footage 2,688,000 420,820 4,178,228 1,640,252 8,927,300 Jobs 8,525 908 12,990 4,107 26,530
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-9
3.5.3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
This section gives an overview of the General Plan amendments that would occur as part of the proposed project. Proposed amendments to the General Plan policies and actions are presented in Appendix E, Proposed General Plan Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Information within Appendix E does not include changes to the General Plan format, background information, or narrative language, which will be identified when the General Plan is released.
Many of the General Plan amendments would focus on updating the introduction, purpose, and background language that provides context for the policies and actions within the General Plan. Other amendments would create consistency with the updated buildout projections.
Chapters and content within the General Plan 2030 that would be amended by the proposed project include:
Chapter 1 and 2 – Introduction. Land acknowledgement, narrative, and background information. Chapter 3 - Land Use Element. Narrative, existing conditions, future development projections, and policy and action language pertaining to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and cultural, historical, and tribal cultural resources.
Chapter 5 - Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. Narrative and policy language related to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Chapter 6 - Environmental Management Element. Background information on wastewater and stormwater and policy updates incorporating bird safe design guidelines and hydrology. Chapter 7 – Parks and Recreation. Policy update related to implementing the City’s Potential Trail Connections Plan.
Chapter 9 – Noise Element. Narrative and policy language related to the existing airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the City’s noise ordinance. Policy updates in this element focus on increasing consistency between the noise policies and criteria contained in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and therefore do not have the potential to create an environmental impact.
TABLE 3-3 NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTIONS
Non-Residential Square
Footage Category
Existing Conditions
(2024)
Projected Net Change
(2024-2045)
2045 General Plan Reset
Buildout (2045)
Commercial 1,511,000 (551,500) 959,500
Office 1,462,500 343,700 1,806,200
Research &
Development 2,199,400 8,476,600 10,676,000
Industrial 4,703,300 658,500 5,361,800
Total 9,876,200 8,927,300 18,803,500
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10 JANUARY 2025
As described above, none of the General Plan amendments, apart from the updated buildout projections, involve new policies or actions with the potential to create an environmental impact.
Therefore, the analysis in this EIR is focused on the amount of development projected under 2045 General Plan Reset.
3.5.4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
The Land Use Element of the City of San Carlos General Plan defines 19 land use designations by their allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities. The proposed project does not involve changes to the land use designations or map. The General Plan land use designations as applied to properties in the EIR Study Area are mapped in Figure 3-3, General Plan Land Use Designations. Acreages of these land use designations within the EIR Study Area are provided in Table 3-4, General Plan Land Use Designations. Although two specific plans are currently underway and will propose modifications to land uses, including the introduction of housing in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, these future land use changes are not considered as part of the 2045 General Plan Reset project evaluated in this EIR.
TABLE 3-4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Land Use Designation Acreage Percent of Total Acreage
Airport 87 3%
General Commercial – Industrial 118 5%
Mixed Use, 30-40 DUs/Ac 20 1%
Mixed Use, 38-50 DUs/Ac 18 1%
Mixed Use, 75-100 DUs/Ac 24 1%
Mixed Use, 90-120 DUs/Ac 33 1%
Multi-Family, 15-20 DUs/Ac 126 5%
Multi-Family, 45-59 DUs/Ac 4 <1%
Multi-Family, 75-100 DUs/Ac 47 2%
Neighborhood Retail 1 <1%
Neighborhood Retail/Mixed Use, 75-120 DUs/Ac 24 1%
Open Space 180 7%
Open Space – Schools 71 3%
Park 146 6%
Planned Industrial 307 12%
Public 13 1%
Single Family, 3 DUs/Ac 161 6%
Single Family, 6 DUs/Ac 1,417 55%
Undesignated 7 <1%
Total 2,593 100%
Source: City of San Carlos, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 JANUARY 2025
3.6 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
This Draft EIR is intended to review potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project and determine corresponding mitigation measures, as necessary. This Draft EIR is a program-level EIR and does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual developments that may be allowed in the future under the proposed project. Each future project will conduct additional environmental review, as required by CEQA, to secure any necessary discretionary development permits. As part of this process, subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the General Plan and this Draft EIR.
Projects successive to this Draft EIR include, but are not limited to, the following:
Approval and funding of major public projects and capital improvements. Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed project. Development plan approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, planned developments, and other land use permits.
Permit issuances and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects.
Development agreement processes and approvals:
Adoption of Specific Plan(s), e.g. Northeast Area Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan The 2045 housing, population, commercial development, and employment forecasts in this Draft EIR will serve as parameters for environmental analysis for future development projects within San Carlos. In the event that proposed development in the city would exceed the buildout projections used in this Draft EIR, the City would require environmental review for any subsequent development to address growth impacts that would occur as a result of development exceeding the General Plan projections and related Draft EIR assumptions. This does not preclude the City, as lead agency, from determining that an EIR would be required for any development under the relevant provisions of CEQA (e.g., Section 21166 and related guidelines).
3.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed project would require adoption by the San Carlos City Council. The Planning and Transportation Commission will review the proposed project and make recommendations to the City Council. While other agencies may be consulted during the 2045 General Plan Reset process, their approval is not required for 2045 General Plan Reset adoption. However, subsequent development under the 2045 General Plan Reset may require approval of State, federal, responsible, and trustee agencies that may rely on the programmatic EIR for decisions in their areas of permitting.
PLACEWORKS 4-1
Environmental Analysis
This chapter describes the organization of the environmental analysis section of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the assumptions and methodology of the impact analysis and the cumulative impact setting.
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
This chapter of the Draft EIR is made up of 18 subchapters that evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed for potential significant impacts in the following 18 environmental issue areas, which are organized with the listed abbreviations:
4.1 Aesthetics (AES) 4.10 Land Use and Planning (LAND)
4.2 Air Quality (AQ) 4.11 Noise (NOISE)
4.3 Biological Resources (BIO) 4.12 Parks and Recreation (REC)
4.4 Cultural Resources (CUL) 4.13 Population and Housing (POP)
4.5 Energy (ENE) 4.14 Public Services (PS)
4.6 Geology and Soils (GEO) 4.15 Transportation (TRAN)
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR)
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ) 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (Hydro) 4.18 Wildfire (WILD) Each subchapter is organized into the following sections:
Environmental Setting offers a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed project can be compared, and an overview of federal, State, regional, and local laws and regulations relevant to each environmental issue. Standards of Significance refer to the quantitative or qualitative standards, performance levels, or criteria used to evaluate the existing setting with and without the proposed project to determine whether the impact is significant. These thresholds are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines, and also may reflect established health standards, ecological tolerance standards, public service capacity standards, or guidelines established by agencies or experts. Impact Discussion gives an overview of the potential impacts of the proposed project and explains why impacts are found to be significant or less than significant prior to mitigation. This subsection also includes a discussion of cumulative impacts related to the proposed project. Impacts and 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 JANUARY 2025
mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronym or abbreviated reference to the impact section.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As stated above, significance criteria are identified before the impact discussion subsection, under the subsection, “Standards of Significance.” For each impact identified, a level of significance is determined using the following classifications:
No Impact. A no impact conclusion describes circumstances where there is no adverse effect on the environment.
Less than Significant (LTS). A less-than-significant impact includes effects that are noticeable, but do not exceed established or defined thresholds, or can be mitigated below such thresholds. Significant (S). A significant impact includes a description of the circumstances where an established or defined threshold would be exceeded. For each impact identified as being significant, the EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate, or avoid the adverse effect. If one or more mitigation measure(s) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level successfully, this is stated in the EIR.
Significant and Unavoidable (SU). Significant and unavoidable impacts are described where mitigation measures would not diminish these effects to less-than-significant levels. The identification of a program-level significant and unavoidable impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with the applicable regulations and meet applicable thresholds of significance.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved at the discretion of the City of San Carlos, acting as the lead agency, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including views held by members of the public. An ironclad definition of “significant effect” is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary based on the setting. The analysis in this Draft EIR is based on scientific and factual data that has been reviewed by the lead agency and represents the lead agency’s independent judgment and conclusions.1 This section describes the methodology for the program-level evaluation in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET HORIZON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project includes the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset. The environmental analysis in this EIR discusses the potential for 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064(b). 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
adverse impacts to occur from increasing the buildout potential in the EIR Study Area and implementing proposed amendments to General Plan goals, policies, and actions.
The 2045 horizon buildout potential under the proposed project includes growth associated with current and approved development projects, development of the sites in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory, development of ADUs and units under Senate Bill 9, estimated future housing development under future Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycles, and long-range planning initiatives, specifically the Downtown and Northeast Area Specific Plans, currently in progress. As shown in Table 3- 1, Proposed 2045 General Plan Reset Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, this combined projected new growth in the entire EIR Study Area for the 2045 horizon year includes 8,300 new housing units, 15,620 new residents, and 26,530 new employees by 2045.
Because the proposed project consists of a long-term policy document that is intended to guide future development activities and City actions, and because no specific development projects are proposed as part of the project, it is reasonable to assume that future development would occur incrementally or gradually over the approximately 20-year buildout horizon (i.e., 2024 to 2045). However, while this assumption describes the long-range nature of the proposed project, it does not prohibit or restrict when development can occur over the horizon period.
EVALUATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ITS HORIZON-YEAR
PROJECTIONS
All of the analyses in this EIR are based on a consistent interpretation of the buildout projections included in Chapter 3, Project Description. However, the various analyses in this EIR require two different types of data inputs: some analyses require spatial inputs only and some require both quantitative and spatial inputs. In each case, the required analysis is determined by the standard of significance used for the impact discussion.
Analyses that require a quantitative estimate of growth include vehicle trip generation, air pollution emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, noise generation, population growth, impacts on public services and utilities, and recreation. Impacts in these areas are generated by an increase in the number of people living and working in San Carlos, which generates consequent increases in vehicle miles traveled, noise, emissions, and use of services. Therefore, a reliable analysis depends on a reasonable, quantitative estimate of new population and employment. For these analyses, the horizon-year projection was considered “reasonably foreseeable” and was used in the analysis. Analyses that are based on spatial location only include aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and safety, hydrology and water quality, land use, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. These analyses must consider whether the proposed General Plan would allow any development in a geographic area, such as a very high fire hazard severity zone, which could create potential impacts. For these analyses, the question is not necessarily how much development the General Plan would allow, but where that development could potentially be located. Therefore, all future development in the EIR Study Area was evaluated to assess impacts in these topics.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-4 JANUARY 2025
BASELINE
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, although most of the goals, policies, and actions of the existing General Plan are being carried forward into the proposed 2045 General Plan, this EIR does not evaluate the proposed project compared to the full potential buildout allowed by the existing General Plan, but rather evaluates the impacts of the proposed project compared to existing conditions, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2. Generally, baseline represents the existing conditions on the ground (“physical conditions”). However, for quantitative analyses reliant on existing demographic or development data, a baseline year of 2024 is used, since this was the year the Notice of Preparation was published.
Baseline population, housing, and employment data from 2024 is shown in Table 4-1, Existing Baseline Conditions.
TABLE 4-1 EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS (2024)
Category City Limits Unincorporated Total EIR Study Area Households 12,000 760 12,760
Housing Units 12,460 790 13,250
Total Population 28,890 1,940 30,830
Jobs 20,410 370 20,780
Note: As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area includes city limit and the Sphere of Influence. The EIR Study Area is shown on Figure 3-2, EIR Study Area.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s and Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area 2050 is the San Francisco Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the long-range integrated transportation and land use/housing strategy through 2050 for the Bay Area, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Plan Bay Area lays out a development scenario for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (excluding goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by the California Air Resources Board. Plan Bay Area 2050 extends the planning horizon and builds on the robust framework of Plan Bay Area 2040.
As part of its implementing framework, Plan Bay Area identifies Priority Development Areas (PDA) and Transit Priority Areas (TPA) as areas where concentrated development can have beneficial environmental effects and reduce adverse environmental impacts. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, Plan Bay Area 2050 identifies the following PDA and TPA within the EIR Study Area:
Railroad Corridor PDA: As shown in Figure 4-1, this PDA contains El Camino Real and land generally to the west of El Camino Real which includes portions of the downtown area of San Carlos. As shown 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
on Figure 4-1, this PDA shares a border with the Villages of Belmont Corridor PDA, just outside of the City.
TPA. A TPA is defined as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan. Plan Bay Area identifies El Camino Real as part of a transportation project (RTP ID: 21-T10-078) to implement Bus Rapid Transit improvements to existing bus service.2 As shown in Figure 4-1, the TPA surrounds El Camino Real (SR-82), extending from the northwestern boundary of the City to the northeastern boundary.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
A PDA is a place that has convenient public transit service, often referred to as “transit-oriented,” that is prioritized by local governments, such as San Carlos, for housing, jobs, and services within existing communities. All PDAs are created and planned by local governments, which nominate eligible areas to the Association of Bay Area Governments for adoption. The PDAs identified throughout the Bay Area in Plan Bay Area 2050 were projected to accommodate 72 percent (or 985,000 units) of new housing and 48 percent (or 679,000) of new jobs in the region from the 2015 baseline. 3 Development in PDAs
leverage existing infrastructure and therefore can minimize development in green field (undeveloped) areas and maximize growth in transit-rich communities to help lower VMT and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels. Additionally, due to the location, infill development in PDAs result in fewer impacts related to agricultural, forestry, mineral, archaeological, and biological resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and wildfire. Impacts related to concentrated development in the PDAs are discussed throughout this Draft EIR, and specific quantified impacts are described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR.
Certain future residential or mixed-use residential projects and projects in PDAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible for CEQA streamlining. For example, while not exclusive to PDAs, due to their urban setting, development in a PDA is more likely to qualify for a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, Class 32 Categorical Exemption. 2 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2023, Plan Bay Area 2050 Transportation Project List, https://www.planbayarea.org/2050-plan/final-plan-bay-area-2050/final-supplementalreports/interactive-transportation-project-list, accessed May 30, 2023. 3 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed on August 29, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 JANUARY 2025
TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS
Plan Bay Area 2050 also identifies TPAs, referred to as Transit-Rich PDAs. 4 These are areas within 0.5
miles of a major transit stop (i.e., a stop with service frequency of 15 minutes or less) that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon of a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. TPAs generally include existing neighborhoods served by transit and contain a wide range of housing options along with jobs, schools, and amenities. Certain future residential or mixed-use residential projects5 in TPAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible for CEQA streamlining.
With respect to future development in a TPA, SB 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended CEQA by adding Public Resources Code Section 21099 regarding analysis of transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts for urban infill projects, among other provisions.
SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly the Office of Planning and Research) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA, shifting from a congestion-based (level of service or LOS) standard to a VMT standard.
Transportation impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR.
With respect to aesthetics and parking, CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, these topics are no longer to be considered in determining significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:
Is located on an infill site which is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.”
Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment-center project. Is in a transit priority area, as defined above.
Accordingly, in compliance with SB 743, no significant aesthetic or parking impacts can be made in this environmental analysis for future development in the TPA. Aesthetic and parking impacts are not discussed further in this EIR with respect to future development in these designated TPAs. As appropriate, aesthetic impacts are considered for future development outside of these areas. 4 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Framework Update – Overview of Existing and Updated Geographies, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdfs_referenced/2019_Regional_Growth_Framework_Update_- _Whats_Changed_1.pdf, accessed August 29, 2024.
5 A project in a transit priority area is referred to as a transit priority project sometimes referred to as a TPP development.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 JANUARY 2025
PARKING
Effective in 2010, parking inadequacy as a significant environmental impact was eliminated from the CEQA Guidelines by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, which is the entity charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA. Accordingly, parking adequacy in the EIR Study Area is not discussed further in this EIR.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The California Supreme Court concluded in the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA vs. BAAQMD) case that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact project’s future users or residents.” The CBIA vs.
BAAQMD ruling provided for several exceptions to the general rule where an analysis of the project on the environment is warranted: 1) if the project would exacerbate existing environmental hazards (such as exposing hazardous waste that is currently buried); 2) if the project qualifies for certain specific specified exemptions (certain housing projects and transportation priority projects per Public Resource Code (PRC) 21159.21 (f),(h); 21159.22 (a),(b)(3); 21159.23 (a)(2)(A); 21159.24 (a)(1),(3);or 21155.1 (a)(4),(6)); 3) if the project is exposed to potential noise and safety impacts on projects due to proximity to an airport (per PRC 21096); and 4) school projects require specific assessment of certain environmental hazards (per PRC 21151.8). Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including whether the proposed project may exacerbate any existing environmental hazards. Existing environmental hazards in San Carlos include, but are not limited to, seismic hazards, sea level rise, and wildfire. While the effects of these hazards on the proposed project are not subject to CEQA review following the CBIA case,6 the City recognizes that seismic, wildfire, and flooding hazards from sea level rise are issues of local issues of concern. Therefore, a discussion of the project’s potential to exacerbate these hazardous conditions is provided in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR, together with other reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts.
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Used in this context, cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. In the case of a long-range plan such as the General Plan, cumulative effects occur when future development under the long-range plan is combined with development in the surrounding areas, or in some instances, in the entire region. 6 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-9
Where the incremental effect of a project is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. The CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency has discretion to determine if a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable.
The cumulative discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18 of this Draft EIR explain the geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, county, watershed, or air basin). The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends upon the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative impact. In assessing aesthetic impacts, on the other hand, only development within the local area of change would contribute to a cumulative visual effect since the area of change is only visible in its vicinity.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methodologies for the cumulative impact analysis:
The “list” approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city. The “projections” approach allows the use of a summary of projections in an adopted plan or related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling.
The cumulative impact analysis in this Draft EIR relies on a projections approach and takes into account growth from the proposed project within the EIR Study Area in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of San Mateo County and the surrounding region, as forecasted by Plan Bay Area 2050. The following provides a summary of the cumulative impact setting for each impact area:
Aesthetics: The cumulative setting for visual impacts includes the growth within the EIR Study Area in combination with projected growth in the rest of San Mateo County and the surrounding region.
The cumulative setting for visual impacts also includes future development during the buildout horizon of the proposed project, combined with effects of development on lands adjacent to the EIR Study Area
Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts could occur from a combination of the proposed project with regional growth within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Biological Resources: The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological resources considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands and the region. Cultural Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources could occur from projected growth and intensified development in the surrounding region.
Energy: Cumulative impacts to energy resources could occur if a series of actions lead to a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or a conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Geology and Soils: The cumulative setting for this analysis includes growth within the EIR Study Area in combination with projected growth in the rest of San Mateo County and the surrounding region. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 JANUARY 2025
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The cumulative impact analyses for GHG emissions are related to the entire region. Because GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide, the cumulative impact analysis focuses on the global impacts and thus, is by its nature cumulative.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The area considered for cumulative impacts is San Mateo County, which is the service area for the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services, the affected Certified Unified Program Agency.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of hydrology and water quality impacts, including the potential to exacerbate the potential for flooding, considers the watersheds that encompass San Carlos.
Land Use and Planning: The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects considers impacts from future development under the proposed project combined with impacts of development on lands adjacent to the city.
Noise: Cumulative noise impacts are considered in the context of development that could occur with implementation of the proposed project and cumulative development within nearby areas of San Mateo County.
Parks and Recreation: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the growth from the proposed project combined with the estimated growth from regional growth and their cumulative impacts regarding parks and recreation in the regional service area of the park and recreation providers in the EIR Study Area.
Population and Housing: Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of future development under the proposed project combined with development on lands adjacent to the city. Public Services: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of projected growth from development under the proposed project within the city combined with the estimated growth in the service areas of each service provider.
Transportation: The analysis of the proposed project addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the context of the region.
Tribal Cultural Resources: Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources could occur when a series of actions leads to adverse effects on local Native American tribes or tribal lands. Utilities and Service Systems: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the estimated growth in each utility’s service area. Cumulative impacts to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater infrastructure, and energy infrastructure are individually analyzed. Wildfire: The analysis of the proposed project includes a discussion of how future development in the region may exacerbate wildfire risk in San Carlos and the surrounding area. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-1
4.1 AESTHETICS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to aesthetics, and the potential impacts of the project from adopting and implementing the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, and from future development and activities that would occur within the buildout horizon of the proposed project. A summary of the relevant regulatory framework and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of potential impacts and cumulative impacts related to implementation of the proposed project.
4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California State Scenic Highways Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the State of California legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highways Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. The California Scenic Highway Program is maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has not designated any highways within the EIR Study Area as a State Scenic Highway. However, to the west of the city limit, Interstate 280 (I-280) and State Route (SR) 35 are Caltrans-designated State Scenic Highways, and SR 92 is eligible for designation.1
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations, commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. The CBC includes standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.
The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen. As part of the CBC, CALGreen is in Part 11 of Title 24. CALGreen establishes building standards aimed at enhancing the design and construction of buildings using building concepts that reduce negative impacts and increase positive environmental impacts by encouraging sustainable construction practices. Specifically, Section 5.106.8, Light Pollution Reduction, establishes backlight, 1 California Department of Transportation, 2018, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed October 1, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-2 JANUARY 2025
uplight, and glare ratings to minimize the effects of light pollution for nonresidential development. The local building permit process enforces the mandatory provisions of CALGreen. The City of San Carlos regularly adopts each new CALGreen update under the SCMC Chapter 15.04.125 Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
Senate Bill 743
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adding California Public Resources Code Section 21099 regarding analysis of aesthetics impacts for urban infill projects, among other provisions. CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area (TPA) shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, these topics are no longer to be considered in determining significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:
Is located on an infill site which is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.”
Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment-center project. Is in a transit priority area, which is defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” As described in further detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, and Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area includes the TPA located along El Camino Real and surrounding the Caltrain station in San Carlos. Accordingly, in compliance with SB 743, no significant aesthetic impact findings can be made in this environmental analysis for future development in the TPA.2 Aesthetic impacts are not discussed further in this EIR with respect to future development in the TPA. As appropriate, aesthetic impacts are only considered for future development outside of these areas.
Local Regulations
San Carlos General Plan
As part of the proposed project, some existing General Plan goals, policies, and actions would be amended or new policies would be added. Applicable goals, policies, and actions are identified and 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Areas, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5, accessed September 24, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-3
assessed for their effectiveness and potential to result in an adverse physical impact later in this chapter under Section 4.1.3, Impact Discussion.
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
The San Carlos Municipal Code (SCMC) is the primary document that regulates the policies and practices of the City. The SCMC contains the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Building and Construction Code, and other titles that are important in implementing the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to aesthetics as follows:
Chapter 12.08, Grading and Excavations, establishes standards and specifications for site planning activities to protect soil and water quality and maintain the city’s natural topography, soils and vegetative features during development.
Title 15, Buildings and Construction, is the primary document that regulates the building and construction requirements in San Carlos. It is based on the California Building Code but has been modified to include provisions applicable only to San Carlos. Title 17, Subdivisions, implements the California Subdivision Map Act and the City General Plan and Specific Plans, as they relate to the subdivision of land. Its provisions ensure the orderly development of lands in the incorporated city. The ordinance also provides standards for surveying, design, and construction and installation of relevant infrastructure. Title 18, Zoning Code, divides the city into distinct zones in order to implement the land use and development policies in the General Plan. Among the primary objectives of the Zoning Code are the regulation of building form, placement, density, and the provision of sufficient parking and open spaces in conjunction with development.
Section 18.15.070, Lighting and illumination, includes standards that apply to all new development and additions that expand existing floor area by ten percent or more. This chapter regulates the use of lighting for multiple-unit residential buildings, nonresidential buildings, and pedestrian-oriented lighting.
Chapter 18.29, Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review, establishes the design review and compliance review procedures to ensure that new development supports the General Plan’s goal of creating a vibrant pedestrian- and transit-oriented core and distinctive neighborhoods and districts with a diversity of building types that provide continuity in scale and character with appropriate transitions.
Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Development Projects In November 2023, Ordinance 1603 was adopted that made amendments to the certain section in SCMC Chapter 18, Zoning. Establishing objective design standards for residential development is essential to ensure orderly and streamlined development, comply with state law requirements, and to meet the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.3
3 City of San Carlos, 2023, City Council Staff Report,
https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13065, accessed on October 1, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-4 JANUARY 2025
East Side Innovation District Vision Plan
Approved in 2021, the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan sets forth clear goals and principles written to achieve the desired character for this area of the City. The East Side Innovation District applies to the area east of El Camino Real and west of US Highway 101 and is bounded by Brittan Avenue to the south and Holly Street to the north. Principles of the Vision Plan related to aesthetics include principles coordinating signage, banners, lighting, streetscape elements, and public art to illustrate the legacy of the East Side Innovation District.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Visual Character
San Carlos is comprised of a number of neighborhoods, districts, and open spaces. The visual character is typical of surrounding cities and contains several aesthetic resources such as scenic vistas from the hills in the western portions of the city, cohesive residential neighborhoods, and a vibrant, pedestrian-scale downtown. Existing neighborhoods are predominantly residential, while districts contain a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
Downtown and Historic Downtown Core Area
Downtown is defined as Laurel Street from Holly Street to Greenwood Avenue including properties north to El Camino Real and west to Walnut Street. The historic Downtown Core Area is centered at the 1100 and 1200 blocks of San Carlos Avenue and the 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Laurel Street. Laurel Street is a pleasant pedestrian environment with a grid street pattern, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping.
Frank D. Harrington Park is centrally located in the Downtown area and offers people a place to gather and visit. The street width supports a pedestrian environment and is in scale with the surrounding buildings. The alley between Laurel Street and El Camino Real minimizes curb cuts along Laurel Street and allows service vehicles to access businesses from the rear of the buildings. Buildings of varying heights, typically one to two stories, with traditional storefronts are generally built to the sidewalk and address the street. Downtown serves as a character-defining resource for San Carlos.
Laurel Street (South of Arroyo Street)
Laurel Street, south of Arroyo Street to Eaton Avenue, differs from Downtown. Although the buildings are of similar height, one to two stories, storefronts along this portion of Laurel Street are broken up by mixed-use residential and residential buildings. Storefronts are mostly active along the street with the presence of ground floor retail; however, the residential units interspersed along the street interrupt the continuity of these active uses. As in the Downtown portion of Laurel Street, an almost continuous alley between Laurel Street and El Camino Real reduces curb cuts along Laurel Street and provides access for service vehicles at the rear of buildings.
Development on the east side of Laurel Street, between Belmont Avenue and White Oak Way, is oriented towards El Camino Real. Key building facades fronting Laurel Street have no windows or entrances which creates a block of blank walls with no windows or doorways. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-5
South Laurel Street has limited spaces to gather and has no public open space such as a plaza or pocket park. Trees and landscaping are intermittent along this portion of the street. The corridor has few curb cuts and a relatively narrow street which helps create a pedestrian environment.
This area includes many important community uses, business support services, personal support services, and convenience uses. Uses include a grocery store, retail, restaurants, and offices as well as multi-family residential uses. During 2023, the 700 block of Laurel Street was permanently closed to cars and turned into a pedestrian mall. This area’s streets are currently being redesigned and will be reviewed during the Downtown Specific Plan and Streetscape Master Plan planning processes.
El Camino Real
The El Camino Real corridor is a linear commercial area with a diverse range of uses including autorelated businesses, lodging, restaurants and miscellaneous small businesses. Although it is a regional transit corridor serving the Peninsula, El Camino Real is largely automobile-oriented. The visual quality of the area is dominated by automobiles and contains diverse businesses, including restaurants, service shops, small offices, and other businesses. The train tracks also run parallel to El Camino and much of the land between the tracks and the road is developed with multi-family housing and surface parking for the train station. The grade-separated railroad tracks present an elevated visual barrier that obstructs views to the east from El Camino Real.
East Side Area
The East Side area includes 600 acres of land in the eastern portion of the city. The area is defined by the city limit to the north, east and south, and the railroad tracks to the west. The East Side area is bisected by US Highway 101. Initially, this area was the site of small industrial firms including manufacturing, repairing, building supply uses, service businesses, and housing which arose after World War II. Since the 1990s, the uses in the East Side area have transitioned and new non-residential uses including research and development space, computer hardware and software, telecommunications, and life sciences, reflecting San Carlos’ location in the northern portion of Silicon Valley. The area also includes shopping centers with large format retail stores. Subareas of the East Side area include the Northeast Area, East Side Innovation District, the Industrial Arts Neighborhood, and the Harbor Industrial Area.
The East Side area also contains San Carlos Airport, located east of US Highway 101, along the Bay shoreline. Private planes are the primary users of the airport and are utilized for both business and recreation.
There are two residential neighborhoods in the East Side area, between Old County Road and Industrial Road, both north and south of Holly Street. The neighborhoods are predominantly comprised of one- or two-story single-family homes set back from the narrow residential streets. These neighborhoods have abundant street trees and a strong sense of neighborhood. Laureola Park is a major focal point of one of the residential neighborhoods.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-6 JANUARY 2025
Residential Neighborhoods West of El Camino Real
The character of residential neighborhoods in San Carlos is diverse. Adjacent to Downtown and Laurel Street are older residential areas with traditional grid street patterns, higher densities, historic homes and a mixture of housing types. Relatively old and established street trees, pre-World War II buildings and attractive streetscapes create the visual character in this neighborhood.
Residential areas on the south end of the city (adjacent to Redwood City) are characterized by one- and two-story single-family homes with tree-lined streets. Homes are set back from an elongated, suburban street grid pattern and are a mix of one- and two-story homes.
The western portions of San Carlos, west of Alameda de las Pulgas, contain residential neighborhoods that are integrated into picturesque and often dramatic hillside terrain. In these areas, streets follow the contours of the hills, with many multi-story hillside homes appearing as single-story residences from the street. The far western portion of the city, near Brittan and Crestview Avenues, features single-family homes and condominiums with commanding views of the San Francisco Bay and the East Bay. Much of the development of this far western portion of the city occurred by clustering home sites and including large areas of private open space which add to its rural character.
Devonshire Canyon
Located in the western part of the city, Devonshire Canyon is unincorporated land under the jurisdiction of San Mateo County, surrounded on all sides by San Carlos. Devonshire Canyon is characterized by single-family homes located within exceptionally scenic hilly terrain. Most houses are located in flatter canyon floor areas, with the steeper areas largely but not completely undeveloped. Roads in Devonshire Canyon are extremely narrow and winding, and generally do not have sidewalks. Upper branches of Pulgas Creek are also located in this area and provide scenic riparian corridors.
Open Space
Open space areas provide important aesthetic value both from a distance and from adjacent areas.
These visual qualities include trees, grasslands and open space. These areas also contain many scenic vistas overlooking San Carlos and surrounding communities. The EIR Study Area also includes larger open space areas, such as Eaton Park, Big Canyon Park, and Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve.
Scenic Vistas
San Carlos has varied topography that ranges from land at sea level to the hilly western portion of the city with elevations up to 900 feet. The hillsides and ridgelines in the EIR Study Area provide an array of scenic resources and afford numerous vantage points from which scenic vistas can be enjoyed. Views of the surrounding open space and San Francisco Bay can be accessed in many areas west of Alameda de las Pulgas, including from City parks, open space areas, and existing residential neighborhoods. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-7
Scenic Highways
Scenic roads and corridors are an aesthetic resource for San Carlos and the surrounding communities.
There are three types of scenic roads near or in San Carlos: State scenic highways, County scenic highways, and City scenic roads.
There is one State scenic highway near the EIR Study Area. While the City of San Carlos is not visible from this scenic highway, portions of the SOI are visible from it. Interstate 280. This freeway is the most well-known scenic road near San Carlos with sweeping views of the Bayside and San Francisco watersheds.
There are two County-designated scenic highways located near the EIR Study Area:
Edgewood Road. This road is a County scenic highway. It is rural in nature and used frequently by bicyclists.
Cañada Road. This road is also a County scenic highway. It is also rural and used by bicyclists.
There are seven City-designated scenic roads in San Carlos, which are identified in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the existing General Plan:
Alameda de las Pulgas. This road runs through quiet residential areas of the city from north to south. Special landscape treatments have been implemented at points along the road to enhance the corridor.
San Carlos Avenue. This avenue goes from the scenic hillside areas in the west-ern portion of the city to the heart of downtown. Special landscape treatments have been implemented at points along the route to enhance the corridor.
Brittan Avenue. This avenue traverses scenic open space and residential areas in the western portion of the city, crosses the city and continues all the way to US Highway 101. Club Drive. This street crosses through open space areas and residential neighborhoods in the western portion of the city and provides scenic vistas. Crestview Drive. This street runs along the ridges of the western portion of the city providing dramatic views to the east.
El Camino Real. This road is historically significant and is visually important as it carries large amounts of traffic. There are not scenic vistas from El Camino Re-al within the city. Holly Street. This arterial street extends east to west from US Highway 101 to Elm Street. It is a primary entry and access to San Carlos and improvements have included entryway decorative features, a grade separation and landscaping.
Light and Glare
Light pollution includes all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, sky glow and over-lighting. Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment and 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-8 JANUARY 2025
excessive light and glare can be visually disruptive to people and nocturnal animal species. The EIR Study Area may be adversely affected not only by light pollution from development within San Carlos, but also from sky glow associated with the development of surrounding cities.
4.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant aesthetic impact if it would:
AES-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
AES-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
AES-3 In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
AES-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
AES-5 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative aesthetics impacts in the area.
With respect to AES-3, PRC (CEQA) Section 21071, Urbanized Area Definition, has several metrics by which a city can be defined as an urban area. CEQA Section 21071(a) states that a city can be classified as an urban area based on different characteristics depending on whether its population is more or less than 100,000 persons. If the city has a population of less than 100,000 persons, as is the case in San Carlos, the city may be considered urbanized if it and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. As shown in Table 3-1, Proposed 2045 General Plan Reset Buildout Projections In The EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, San Carlos has a population of approximately 28,890 as of 2024 and, according to the State of California Department of Finance, in 2024 the population of Redwood City was 81,863 (for a combined total population of 110,753). Therefore, San Carlos is considered an urban area under CEQA Guidelines Section 21071, and impact discussion AES-3 addresses the second part of the question and evaluates whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
4.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
As described under subheading “Senate Bill 743” in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, future development in the TPA along El Camino Real and the Caltrain station in San Carlos would be exempt from aesthetics evaluation. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the majority of new housing in San Carlos is expected on infill parcels near Downtown, along the El Camino Real corridor, along Old County Road between Holly Street and Terminal Avenue, and along East San Carlos Avenue. Most of the commercial growth is expected to occur in the Downtown area and most of the office growth is expected in the Downtown and Northeast areas. Research and development and industrial growth would be limited to the east side area of San 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-9
Carlos. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, much of the potential new housing, commercial, and office growth under the proposed project would be in the TPA and are exempt from aesthetics evaluation. Accordingly, aesthetic impacts are only considered for future development outside of the TPA.
AES-1 The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would have the potential to affect scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors if new or intensified development blocked views of areas that provide or contribute to such visual resources. Potential effects could include blocking views of the San Francisco Bay and ridge of hills along the western border of the city from publicly accessible vantage points or the alteration of the overall scenic vista or I-280 corridor itself. Such alterations could be positive or negative, depending on the characteristics of individual future developments and the subjective perception of observers.
Future development outside of the TPA may offer or be part of intermittent or views of the Bay and hills.
Due to the built-out nature of San Carlos and the land use map in the General Plan, future development outside of the TPA would be concentrated in existing urban areas and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas.
The Land Use (LU) Element and Circulation & Scenic Highways (CSH) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to aesthetics, including scenic vistas. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to scenic vistas:
Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
Policy LU-1.10: Require that development within the Pulgas, Brittan and Cordilleras Creek watersheds shall preserve watershed integrity, including natural vegetation, soil and slope stability, water quality, scenic values, and potential archaeological resources. Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Policy LU-8.2: Ensure that new development sensitively transitions to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood.
Policy LU-8.4: Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions be- tween buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential. Policy LU-8.11: Discourage abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between lowrise to mid-rise buildings should be achieved by using the low-rise buildings at the edge of the project site. Consider the relationship of buildings to the street, to one another and to adjacent structures and land uses, especially single-family residential. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-10 JANUARY 2025
Policy LU-8.19: Residential and mixed-use structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, minimize obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, minimize interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the Objective Design Standards.
Goal LU-9: Protect and enhance all residential neighborhoods. 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-9.9: Encourage the design of development to minimize the obstruction of significant views of the San Francisco Bay, the western hills, or other significant natural vistas to the greatest extent possible.
Goal LU-10: Minimize the impacts of development in hillside areas. Policy LU-10.2: Require development in hillside areas to be designed into the natural features of the hillside including topography, trees, vegetation, landforms and drainage channels. Policy LU-10.3: In hillside areas, encourage houses to be oriented to the natural topography of the site.
Policy LU-10.4: Design and locate roads, utilities and other infrastructure to reasonably minimize impacts on the hillside environment. Design should respect the natural topography, produce the least visual impact and require the least grading while remaining consistent with public health and safety standards.
Goal CSH-8: To develop a system of scenic highways and roads that reflects the aesthetic and visual qualities of the existing and developing San Carlos landscape and the surrounding region. Policy CSH-8.1: The City shall continue its program of protecting and enhancing local scenic roads through right-of-way protection and appropriate architectural and landscape controls and requirements.
Policy CSH-8.2: The City shall encourage the planting of native trees and shrubs along local scenic roads, where practical.
Policy CSH-8.3: The City shall maintain local scenic roads in safe condition. Policy CSH-8.4: The City shall continue architectural and site plan review of all signage, structures and site developments proposed in the scenic corridors to ensure appropriateness of design and materials and proper placement of structures and vegetative screening where necessary.
Policy CSH-8.5: Traffic mitigation funds should be available to provide aesthetic enhancement to the city’s Scenic Highways and Roads.
All future development that is subject to discretionary approval within the city limit would be required to comply with SCMC regulations as described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework. The City has also adopted Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Development Projects to ensure the design of new buildings and additions are compatible with their surroundings. Furthermore, future development in the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-11
city would be subject to the various planning documents that govern scenic quality in the city, as described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework.
Any future development in the SOI would be required to comply with the San Mateo County General Plan and San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance. Zoning designations in the SOI include Residential Estates, One Family Residential, and Resource Management districts. Development in the Resource Management District would be required to adhere to San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance Section 6324.2, Site Design Criteria, to ensure compatibility with existing character and visual quality. Development on parcels currently in the SOI would not occur under the proposed project unless and until such parcels are annexed to the City of San Carlos.
Compliance with the existing development requirements described above, along with implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would ensure any impacts to scenic vistas and/or corridors would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-2 The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
As described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, there are no State-designated scenic highways within the EIR Study Area. However, I-280 is a State-designated scenic highway and parts of the SOI are visible heading northbound. Future development in the unincorporated County that would affect I-280 views would be subject to the regulations of San Mateo County, including those in the San Mateo County General Plan and San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance, until the land is annexed to the City. Upon annexation, parcels in the SOI near I-280 would be near Crestview Drive and a scenic corridor could be created and would be subject to General Plan Policy CSH-8.4, listed in impact discussion AES-1, which requires architectural and site review of development within scenic corridors. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not damage existing scenic resources within a State scenic highway and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-3 The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is the primary planning document for the City of San Carlos. The proposed project is intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and State law and with the updated buildout projections. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to these documents being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality.
As described in impact discussion AES-1, all future development that is subject to discretionary approval within the city limit would be required to comply with SCMC regulations and the Objective Design 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-12 JANUARY 2025
Standards for Single-Family Development Projects, as well as the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan. Future development in the SOI would be subject to the regulations of the San Mateo County General Plan and San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance until annexation to the City.
In addition to the policies listed in impact discussion AES-1, the Land Use (LU) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to aesthetics, including scenic quality. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on scenic quality:
Goal LU-7: Promote the community character of San Carlos, including the unique village character of Downtown.
Policy LU-7.4: Respect the visual prominence of important city landmarks, gateways and destinations.
Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Policy LU-8.1: Require all development to feature high quality design that enhances the visual character of San Carlos.
Policy LU-8.3: Encourage design features and amenities in new development and redevelopment, including, but not limited to:
Interconnected street layout.
Clustering of buildings.
Landscaping on each lot.
Visual buffers.
Facilitation of pedestrian activity.
Distinctiveness and variety in architectural design.
Policy LU-8.4: Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions be- tween buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential. Policy LU-8.5: Optimize architectural quality by encouraging the use of quality materials, particularly as accents and authentic detailing, such as balconies and window trims. Policy LU-8.6: Encourage new commercial development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping and tree canopy to enhance the surroundings. Policy LU-8.7: Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings. Policy LU-8.8: Encourage design of convenient pedestrian walkways with shade and minimal tripping hazards, preferably with landscape buffers between roadways and walkways. Policy LU-8.9: Encourage the design of attractive outdoor pedestrian spaces that encourage impromptu public gathering places with features such as plazas, interior walkways and paseos, ornamental gates, trellises, lighting, trees and landscaping, seating and fountains. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-13
Policy LU-8.10: On all sides of buildings, require the incorporation of quality architectural design elements for all building façades and stepping back upper floors in order to reduce bulk and mass and to break up monotonous wall lines.
Policy LU-8.13: Require parking areas associated with development to be located and de- signed to minimize visual impact to the greatest extent feasible. This may include locating parking behind buildings street frontage, below grade, or screening through the use of natural landscaping.
Policy LU-8.16: Require high quality signage through design, use of materials and colors compatible with and complementary to the architectural character of the building(s) and surroundings.
Policy LU-8.17: Require telecommunications and utility facilities to be sensitively placed, shielded, screened or lessened from view to the greatest extent possible through design review. 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-8.2: Review and amend existing residential design guidelines and create commercial design guidelines as needed.
Action LU-8.4: Develop objective design standards consistent with State law and amend the Zoning Ordinance and create a Planning Division application submittal checklist to require information and materials that accurately and sufficiently demonstrate a project’s compliance with new objective design standards.
Goal LU-11: Provide for attractive and functional gateways. Policy LU-11.1: Require high quality design for buildings at visually significant locations in gateway areas.
Policy LU-11.2: Encourage design features, such as landscaping, art and displays in gateway areas that are welcoming, attractive and contribute to a unique sense of place. Policy LU-11.3: Encourage distinctive architectural features, such as tower elements or a plaza at building entry, for buildings located at visually significant locations within gateway areas. Policy LU-11.5: Limit the visibility of surface parking within gateway areas through landscaping and architectural treatments such as low decorative walls or trellises. Policy LU-11.6: Discourage the use of sound walls within gateway areas. If sound walls cannot be avoided, ensure that sound walls are designed to be attractive and well landscaped. Policy LU-11.9: Ensure that new development on the Landmark sites at the northeast and southeast corners of Holly Street and Industrial Road function as the primary gateway features for the Holly Street Gateway area. Site planning, building treatments, pedestrian improvements and landscape features shall exhibit exceptional design and respect integrity of adjacent uses including nearby residential properties.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-14 JANUARY 2025
Action LU-11.1: Develop design guidelines for development and improvements within gateway areas to enhance community character. These guidelines should promote architectural styles, land- scape, street furniture, public art and signage that are in keeping with the aesthetic values of San Carlos.
While development resulting from implementation of the proposed project could potentially impact scenic quality in the EIR Study Area, development projects would be required to adhere to these regulations, along with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and the impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-4 The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a development’s exterior lighting on adjoining uses and areas. Nighttime uses associated with future development may increase light intensity levels and may have the potential to affect existing and future nearby sensitive receptors. If lighting in new development is not designed to reduce upwardly directed light, nighttime lighting could obscure views of the night sky or intrude into neighboring properties. Future development would also incrementally increase glare due to the new building surfaces, parked cars, and solar panels if exterior glazing (i.e., windows and doors) and site planning (i.e., landscaping and solar panel placement) are not carefully considered. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with the lighting plans or policies incorporated in development proposals.
As discussed, future development within the TPA is exempt from aesthetics evaluation pursuant to SB 743. Due to the built-out nature of the EIR Study Area, future development outside of the TPA would occur in existing urban areas and would occur in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development, where future development would have a lesser light and glare impact.
Currently, the EIR Study Area contains many existing sources of nighttime illumination. These include street and parking area lights, building-mounted lights, illuminated signage, security lighting, and interior and exterior lighting on existing residential, commercial, and institutional buildings. Glare is primarily from building materials and parked cars. Additional on-site light and glare is caused by surrounding land uses and vehicular traffic on US Highway 101, I-280, and SR-82.
Future development and activities within the buildout horizon of the proposed project could intensify lighting sources throughout the EIR Study Area. Future lighting would involve uses similar to the existing downtown, urban, and suburban uses in the EIR Study Area and sources of light and glare associated with these uses would be similar in intensity and nature to the existing source of light and glare. In 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-15
addition to new lighting for buildings, security, and parking areas, buildout of the EIR Study Area would also include lighting that would illuminate future development locations.
As described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, in addition to general best management practices that require lighting that is context sensitive in style and intensity required under CALGreen, future development within the city limit, including the installation of solar panels, would also have to comply with the City’s lighting standards as outlined in the SCMC. Future development in the SOI would be subject to the regulations of the San Mateo County General Plan and San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance. Future development would also be reviewed for consistency with the lighting standards regarding the appropriate use of lighting and avoidance of glare from lighting and other sources.
Furthermore, the proposed Land Use (LU) Element, Environmental Management (EM) Element, and Community Safety & Services (CSS) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts related to aesthetics, including light and glare. The following General Plan policies and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts as a result of new sources of light and glare:
Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
Action LU-1.5: Consider adoption of a lighting ordinance that restricts the type, intensity and placement of outdoor lighting fixtures in development. New lighting should illuminate properties appropriately and help keep them safe and secure, but shall not cause glare or spillover into surrounding properties or negatively affect the night sky. Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Action LU-8.5: Research and consider the adoption of a new outdoor lighting ordinance. A lighting ordinance would restrict the type, intensity and placement of outdoor lighting fixtures of development. A lighting ordinance would permit appropriate illumination, improve security, would limit glare or spillover into surrounding properties and would protect the night sky. Goal EM-1: Protect natural habitat and other biological resources. Policy EM-1.4: Protect and preserve the circadian cycle (the cycle of night and day) by limiting sources of light during nighttime hours.
Goal CSS-4: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials. 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.
Compliance with these standards to reduce light spill and glare, combined with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed above, would ensure future development does not generate excessive light levels or glare. Therefore, the lighting and glare from implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase nighttime light or glare within the EIR Study Area or its surroundings and impacts would be less than significant.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AESTHETICS
4.1-16 JANUARY 2025
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-5 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative aesthetics impacts in the area.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, the cumulative setting includes growth within the EIR Study Area in combination with projected growth in the rest of San Mateo County and the surrounding region. The cumulative setting for visual impacts includes future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project, combined with effects of development on lands adjacent to the EIR Study Area.
Compliance with the SCMC regulations and Objective Design Standards, along with implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would ensure any impacts to scenic vistas and/or corridors would be less-than-significant. While there are no officially designated State scenic highways within the EIR Study Area, potions of the SOI are visible from State scenic highway I-280 and future development would be subject to the regulations contained in the San Mateo County General Plan and San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance to avoid damage to scenic resources within State scenic highways. The proposed project is intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and State law; therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Light and glare from future development under the proposed project would be regulated through the City’s lighting standards in the SCMC, the Objective Design Standards, and other adopted plans, as well as implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions.
With adherence to existing local and regional regulations, future development under the proposed project would not create substantial impacts to visual resources in San Carlos or the surrounding communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to aesthetic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to air quality, and the potential impacts of the project from adopting and implementing the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, and from future development and activities that would occur within the buildout horizon of the proposed project. A summary of the relevant regulatory framework and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of potential impacts and cumulative impacts related to implementation of the proposed project. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts are addressed in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR.
The evaluation in this chapter is based on the methodology recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for plan-level analysis. The analysis focuses on air pollution from regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations. In this chapter “emissions” refers to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day (lbs/day) and “concentrations” refers to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ).
The analysis in this chapter is based on the buildout projections for the proposed project. The projected buildout is modeled using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2021 Emissions Factor Model (EMFAC2021), the Off-Road Emissions Factor Model (OFFROAD2021), natural gas use provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), electricity use provided by PG&E and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), and trip generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by Kittelson and Associates. Trip generation is provided in Appendix C, Noise Data, and VMT calculations are in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR. The criteria air pollutant emissions modeling is included in Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.
4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law under the federal Clean Air Act (“National”) and California Clean Air Act, respectively. The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from a specific source; secondary air pollutants occur through chemical reactions. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants.
Table 4.2-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-2 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.2-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Chest pain in heart patients
Headaches, nausea
Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
construction and farming equipment, and
residential heaters and stoves
Ozone (O3) Cough, chest tightness
Difficulty taking a deep breath
Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Increased response to allergens
Aggravation of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases
Emergency room visits for asthma
Premature death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels)
Fireplaces and woodstoves
Windblown dust from overlays, agriculture,
and construction
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Aggravation of respiratory disease (e.g., asthma and emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels,
smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores, and
industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning disabilities in children Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Sources: California Air Resources Board, 2024, Common Air Pollutants, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air-pollutants, accessed September 11, 2024; South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 6, 2005, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf, accessed September 11, 2024.
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.1, 2
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, invisible, flammable gas produced from incomplete combustion of fuels (e.g., burned in cars, engines, stoves, fireplaces, and furnaces) that can be dangerous to human health in high concentrations, especially indoors with little ventilation. CO also indirectly contributes to the buildup of GHGs by reacting with and using up hydroxyl (OH) radicals that would otherwise destroy tropospheric CH4 and ozone, thus increasing their concentrations in the lower atmosphere. Nearly 70 percent of the Bay Area’s carbon monoxide comes from motor vehicles and a substantial amount also comes from burning wood in fireplaces and woodstoves.
State and federal controls on new cars and seasonal wood burning have been established to prevent CO from reaching harmful levels. The Bay Area has not exceeded the national or state standard for CO in several years and is formally recognized as a CO attainment area. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are compounds that are considered a concern as both indoor and outdoor air pollutants. Indoors, ROG can pose a potential 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, February 2024, Bay Area Emissions Inventory, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/emission-inventory/bay-area-emissions-inventory-summaryreport.pdf?rev=aab699bc8277450598292f0537b2c2a7, September 11, 2024. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, August 2023, Pollutant Glossary, https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/about-airquality/glossary, September 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
health risk to occupants due to their toxicity. Outdoors, the primary concern of ROG is their contribution to the formation of photochemical smog and secondary PM. Most ROG are photochemically reactive and can interact with NOX, thereby playing a critical role in determining the rate of ozone production (smog). There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) is a group of highly reactive gases that form when nitrogen reacts with oxygen during combustion, especially at high temperatures. These compounds (including NO and NO2), can contribute significantly to air pollution, especially in cities and areas with high motor vehicle traffic. In the Bay Area, NO2 appears as a brown haze. At higher concentrations, NO2 can damage sensitive crops, such as beans and tomatoes, and aggravate respiratory problems. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), CARB, and BAAQMD have all adopted measures to reduce emissions of NOX. The BAAQMD places restrictions on pollutant sources, such as power plants, boilers, stationary turbines, and stationary engines, and addresses motor vehicle sources by working to change people’s driving habits.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) are compounds that consist of sulfur and oxygen molecules with sulfur dioxide (SO2) being the predominant form found in the lower atmosphere. SO2 is a gas that reacts with other compounds to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4), sulfurous acid (H2SO3), and sulfate (SO4) particles harmful to humans. These contaminants can damage vegetation and negatively impact the health of both humans and animals. In the past, SOX were a problem in the Bay Area, especially near the large oil refineries and chemical plants in Contra Costa County. However, BAAQMD has been controlling emissions from these sources since 1961, and no state or federal excesses of sulfur compound emissions have been recorded since 1976.
Particulate Matter (PM) can be directly emitted from sources or formed secondarily when gaseous emissions react in the atmosphere. PM is composed of a mixture of small airborne particles suspended in liquid droplets (aerosols) floating in the air. These particles originate from a variety of man-made and natural sources, including fossil fuel combustion, refining crude oil, residential wood burning and cooking, wildfires, volcanoes, sea salt, and dust. Because they are so small, these particles can bypass the body’s natural defenses and penetrate deep into the lungs, bloodstream, brain and other vital organs, and individual cells. Health studies have shown that exposure to PM can have a wide range of negative health effects, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, impaired lung development in children, heart attack, stroke, and premature death.
Residential wood burning is the largest source of PM in the Bay Area during the winter. While BAAQMD has made significant progress reducing overall PM levels through its Wood Burning Rule and other measures, it is still the most hazardous air pollutant in the Bay Area in terms of health impacts.
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) includes PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less and is small enough to penetrate deep in the lungs. Approximately 55 percent of San Francisco Bay Area Basin’s (SFBAAB) total PM10 emissions are attributable to subsectors of road dust and construction activities.
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5) includes PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less and thus comprises a portion of PM10. PM2.5 is typically characterized as 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-4 JANUARY 2025
more potent because they are more likely to travel into the deeper parts of the lung, or even the bloodstream. PM deposited on the lung surface can induce tissue damage, lung inflammation, and other respiratory ailments. PM2.5 exposure remains the leading public health risk and contributor to premature death from air pollution in the Bay Area.
Local jurisdictions have the option of developing community risk reduction plans to cumulatively reduce community wide PM2.5 concentrations by following a comprehensive plan. Stationary source screening maps contain all the facilities in the Bay Area where a permit has been issued and that emit one or more toxic air contaminants (TACs). These stationary source screening maps can be used as a basis for community baseline conditions and to evaluate screening-level health risk impacts using the cavity effects equation. An alternative screening methodology is to use CARB’s gas station screening tool to estimate cancer risk and chronic/acute hazards from gas station emissions.3
Ground-Level Ozone (O3), also known as smog, is created by chemical reactions between ozone precursors oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of these ozone precursors. Ozone is most likely to form in the summer and early fall on warm, windless, sunny days. Breathing ozone can aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases, irritate the eyes, reduce visibility, and damage vegetation.
Motor vehicles are the greatest contributor to ozone in the Bay Area, accounting for more than 50 percent of ozone precursors in the region. California’s motor vehicle emissions control program, along with the BAAQMD’s regulatory controls, has significantly reduced Bay Area ozone concentrations in the last few decades.
Lead (Pb) was historically and primarily exhausted from motor vehicles using leaded gasoline and found in commercial and residential paints before it was substantially controlled through regulations. Since its removal from gasoline, lead is now primarily produced from industrial processes (e.g., metal processing) and off-road sources (e.g., small aircraft). Monitoring data in the SFBAAB indicates that the level of lead is generally below state and federal-mandated health standards. Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by BAAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed project.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed September 12, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-5
system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems.4 CARB has identified over 200 substances and groups of substances as TACs.5 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control measures. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds. The most important compounds are particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.
Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. According to BAAQMD, PM emitted from diesel engines contributes to more than 85 percent of the cancer risk in the SFBAAB. Cancer risk from TACs is highest near major DPM sources.6
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal, State, and local air districts have passed laws and regulations intended to control and enhance air quality. Land use in the EIR Study Area is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the USEPA, CARB, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and BAAQMD. Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized in this section.
Federal and State Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 by the United States Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, updated March 2024, Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants, accessed September 12, 2024.
5 California Air Resources Board, 2024, CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants, accessed September 12, 2024. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_A pril2014.ashx?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-6 JANUARY 2025
earliest practical date. The California AAQS tends to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.
Both California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 4.2-2, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise.
Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:7 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards. Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation.
Advanced Clean Cars Regulation.
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation.
Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and SB 107: Renewables Portfolio Standards. Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards. Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code.
TABLE 4.2-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) c
1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft,
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm ships, and railroads.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean * 0.030 ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur
1 hour ppm 0.075 ppm recovery plants, and metal processing. 24 hours ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable
Coarse
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, 7 See Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR for a description of regulations that reduce emissions including Assembly Bill 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, Senate Bill 375, also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. See Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR for a description on Senate Bill 743, and how it relates to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-7
TABLE 4.2-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays).
Respirable Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5) d,e
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 9 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays).
24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 *
Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past
source: combustion of leaded gasoline.
Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average * 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) f 24 hours 25 µg/m3 No Federal
Standard Industrial processes.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hours
ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of
suspended particulate matter, which is a
complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid
cores with liquid coatings, and small
droplets of liquid. These particles vary
greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals,
soot, soil, dust, and salt.
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas
with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed
during bacterial decomposition of sulfurcontaining organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some
natural gas, and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitation.
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a
chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless
gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl
chloride plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl
chloride has been detected near
landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous
waste sites, due to microbial breakdown
of chlorinated solvents.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. a. California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles) are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California AAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b. National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-8 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.2-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
c. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. d. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
e. On February 7, 2024, the national annual PM2.5 standard was lowered from 12 μg/m3 to 9 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary), secondary annual PM2.5 standard, and PM10 standards (primary and secondary) were retained. f. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
Source: California Air Resources Board, July, 2024, Ambient Air Quality Standards, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect public health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, CalEPA, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). AB 1807 sets up a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the airborne toxics control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the airborne toxics control measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe threshold.
Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities8 are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings.
8 Each district is responsible for establishing the prioritization score threshold at which facilities are required to prepare a health risk assessment. In the Bay Area, facilities that generate a cancer risk of greater or equal to 10 in a million and a noncancer chronic or acute risk greater or equal to 10 in a million are high priority facilities. Types of facilities that have the potential to generate risks of this level include refineries, other heavy industrial manufacturing/industrial processes, and fueling stations.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-9
CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, generally restricts on-road diesel-powered commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 10,000 pounds from idling more than five minutes. 13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools, generally restricts a school bus or transit bus from idling for more than five minutes when within 100 feet of a school.
13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate, was established to control emissions associated with diesel-powered TRUs.
REGIONAL REGULATIONS
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the agency responsible for ensuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. Air quality conditions in the SFBAAB have improved significantly since BAAQMD was created in 1955.9 BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMP) to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O3 standard BAAQMD prepares these air quality management plans in coordination with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to ensure consistent assumptions about regional growth.
2017 Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017, making it the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues to provide the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk impacts to local communities by 20 percent between 2015 and 2020. Furthermore the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed September 12, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-10 JANUARY 2025
reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following: 10
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy. Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use.
A multipollutant control strategy was developed to be implemented in the next three to five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants.
The control strategy includes these key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources. Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases. Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas). Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems. Reduce demand for vehicle travel and high-carbon goods and services. Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program
The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area, primarily DPM. The last update to this program was conducted in 2014. Based on findings of the 2014 report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant cancer risks: 1,3- butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions and benzene contributed 3 percent. Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to emissions. All of these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM, including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-11
harbor craft (13 percent). Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions.11 The major contributor to acute and chronic noncancer health effects in the SFBAAB is acrolein (C3H4O).
Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and military airports.12 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an acrolein analytical test method for stationary sources. Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not available, BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analysis for acrolein emissions.13
Assembly Bill 617 Community Action Plans
AB 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statues of 2017) was signed into law in July 2017 to develop a new community-focused program to more effectively reduce exposure to air pollution and preserve public health in environmental justice communities. AB 617 directs CARB and all local air districts to take measures to protect communities disproportionally impacted by air pollution by monitoring emissions and implementing air pollution control strategies.
On September 27, 2018, CARB approved BAAQMD’s recommended communities for monitoring and emission-reduction planning. The State approved communities for year 1 of the program as well as communities that would move forward over the next five years. Bay Area recommendations included all the Community Air Risk Evaluation areas as well as areas with large sources of air pollution (refineries, seaports, airports, etc.), areas identified via statewide screening tools as having pollution and/or health burden vulnerability, and areas with low life expectancy.14 Year 1 Communities:
West Oakland. The West Oakland community was selected for BAAQMD’s first Community Action Plan. In 2017, cancer risk from sources in West Oakland (local sources) was 204 in a million. The primary sources of air pollution in West Oakland include heavy trucks and cars, port 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_A pril2014.ashx?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024.
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2006, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program: Phase I Findings and Policy Recommendations Related to Toxic Air Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/care-program/care_p1_findings_recommendations_v2.pdf, accessed September 12, 2024.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 2021, Air Toxics Control Programs Health Risk Assessment Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20211215_hraguidelinespdf.pdf?rev=eb18ff83f96049fa84d54552b58baee3#:~:text=This%20grid%20shall%20be%20of,subject%20to%20Air%20District %20approval.&text=For%20a%20stochastic%2C%20multipathway%20risk,the%2095th%20percentile%20cancer%20risk, accessed September 12, 2024.
14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 16, 2019, San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-12 JANUARY 2025
and rail sources, large industries, and, to a lesser extent, other sources such as residential sources (i.e., wood burning). The majority (over 90 percent) of cancer risk is from DPM2.5. 15 Richmond. Richmond was selected for a community monitoring plan in year 1 of the AB 617 program. The Richmond area is in western Contra Costa County and includes most of the City of Richmond and portions of El Cerrito. It also includes the following unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County: Bay View, East Richmond Heights, Rollingwood, Tara Hills, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, and El Sobrante. The Path to Clean Air Plan (PTCA Plan) was adopted in April 2024 and includes strategies to reduce harmful air pollution emissions and exposure to PTCA communities. The Plan lays out a series of measures to be implemented over the next ten years by State, regional, and local agencies to reduce pollution in the community.16 Year 2 to 5 Communities: East Oakland/San Leandro, Eastern San Francisco, the Pittsburg-Bay Point area, San Jose, Tri-Valley, and Vallejo are slated for action in years 2 to 5 of the AB 617 program.17 As identified above, AB 617 is not directly applicable to San Carlos since BAAQMD has not currently designated the City of San Carlos or communities within the EIR Study Area as disproportionally impacted by air pollution in either the Year 1 or Year 2-to-5 communities.
Air District Rules and Regulations
Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the EIR Study Area. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under BAAQMD ’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance. 15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, October 2019, Owning Our Air: The West Oakland Community Action Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/west-oakland/2019-meetings/100219-files/final-plan-vol-1- 100219-pdf.pdf?rev=77062b14b6e64f1196ec7c9aa870d82d&sc_lang=en, accessed September 12, 2024. 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2024, The Path to Clean Air, Richmond, North Richmond & San Pablo Community Emissions Reduction Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-communityhealth/richmond/2024/042024-final-ptca-plan-files/ptca-plan_final_april-2024- pdf.pdf?rev=275660fc2f6c4eecaa35b13451b99856&sc_lang=en, accessed September 12, 2024. 17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 16, 2019, San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-13
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program
To reduce public exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, BAAQMD places Airborne Toxic Control Measures to regulate all construction, maintenance, grading, and mining activities that could potentially produce dust containing naturally occurring asbestos.18 The Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program also requires the best available dust mitigation measures to be followed to reduce exposure to airborne asbestos.19
Other BAAQMD Regulations
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers several specific regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to future development constructed, including:
Regulation 2, Rule 2, Permits, New Source Review
Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing City/Council Association of Governments of San Mateo County The City/Council Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the congestion management agency for San Mateo County. C/CAG is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision making and air quality plans. C/CAG’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2023 San Mateo County CMP Update adopted October 2023.20 C/CAG’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data and is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system. In addition, C/CAG’s updated CMP includes multimodal performance standards, trip reduction programs, and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies consistent with the goal of reducing regional VMT in accordance with SB 375. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, updated April 2018, Naturally Occurring Asbestos. https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/permits/asbestos/naturally-occuring-asbestos, accessed September 12, 2024. 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, June 2024, Compliance Advisory, Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program Fee Change. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/compliance-and-enforcement/advisories/asbestosatcm/2024_noa_advisory_reg3schedules-final-pdf.pdf?rev=ae4749e342c24101acdd1159bb28c954, accessed September 12, 2024.
20 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, October 2023, San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan, https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CCAGCMP2023Final-wAppendix.pdf, accessed September 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-14 JANUARY 2025
Strategies identified in the 2023 CMP for San Mateo County, where local jurisdictions are responsible agencies, include:
Designated Roadway System. Establish and maintain the designated CMP roadway system that allows performance monitoring in terms of established level-of-service (LOS) standards. Roadway System LOS. Establish LOS standards using the Transportation Research Board’s Circular 212, the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or a C/CAG adopted alternative that is consistent with the HCM.
System Performance. Establish performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Element. Promote alternative transportation methods to reduce traffic congestion, increase use of park-and-ride lots, improvements in the balance between jobs and housing, and other strategies for reducing vehicle trips, including flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs.
Land Use Impact Analysis Program. Analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on the regional transportation system (both highways and transit). Deficiency Plan Guidelines. Determine every two years whether San Mateo County, including cities/towns within the county, conform to the requirements of the CMP based on information obtained through monitoring.
Capital Improvement Program. Include a seven-year Capital Improvement Program to maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods and to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified through the Land Use Analysis Program. Database and Travel Demand Model. In consultation with the regional transportation planning agency, cities, and the county, develop a uniform database on traffic impacts for use in a countywide travel demand model.
Plan Bay Area 2050
MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.21 Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and commercial construction in walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active transportation; and shifting the location of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) to focus growth. PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. TPAs are half-mile buffers surrounding major transit stops or terminals.As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority 21 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed September 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-15
Areas, in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, the northeastern region of the EIR Study Area includes PDAs and TPAs.
Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces, Boilers, and Water Heaters BAAQMD adopted amendments to Regulation 9, Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants, Rule 4, Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces (Rule 9-4) and Rule 6, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural GasFired Boilers and Water Heaters (Rule 9-6). Space- and water-heating appliances generate a large portion of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from sources in the Bay Area. NOX is a key criteria pollutant as a precursor to ozone and secondary particulate matter (PM) formation. The amendments would require more stringent NOX emission standards for space- and water-heating appliances within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction starting in year 2023 and would substantially reduce NOX emissions from these appliances commonly found in single-family homes and commercial applications.
The amendments to Rules 9-4 and 9-6 include the following elements:
Sales and installation of smaller water heaters and boilers (below 75,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission, starting in 2027.
Sales and installation of furnaces (heat input rate less than 175,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission starting in 2029.
Sales of larger water heaters and boilers (between 75,000 and 2 million BTU/hour) must be zero emission starting in 2031.
Existing appliances can remain in operation, but the rule would apply once they need replacement.
Local Regulations
San Carlos General Plan
As part of the proposed project, some existing General Plan goals, policies, and actions would be amended or new policies would be added. Applicable goals, policies, and actions are identified and assessed for their effectiveness and potential to result in an adverse physical impact later in this chapter under Section 4.2.3, Impact Discussion.
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
The San Carlos Municipal Code (SCMC) is the primary document that regulates the policies and practices of the City. The SCMC contains the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Building and Construction Code, and other titles that are important in implementing the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to air quality as follows:
Chapter 8.06, Smoking Control, restricts and regulates smoking in public places in order to protect the public health and welfare against the proven health hazards and harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
Chapter 8.08, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris, requires the recycling of construction and demolition debris to help the City reduce landfill waste, foster resource conservation, and help the City meet and exceed a diversion rate of 50 percent per AB 939. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-16 JANUARY 2025
Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, list requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, state organic recycling laws, and Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016.
Chapter 18.18, Landscaping, preserves, maintains, and provides regulations of trees for the health and welfare of the City; provide habitat; counteract the pollutants in the air; and maintain the climatic balance.
Chapter 18.21, Performance Standards, establishes permissible limits and permits objective measurement of nuisance, hazards, and objectionable conditions to ensure protection of the community. Section 18.21.090, Air Contaminants, specify that sources of air pollution shall comply with all rules established by the Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40), CARB, and BAAQMD.
Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management, aims to reduce amount of traffic generated by new development and promotion of more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities.
Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
Adopted in September 2021, the City of San Carlos 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) is a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and streamline the environmental review of GHG emissions of future development projects in the city.
22 This CMAP is an update of the 2009 Climate
Action Plan, providing updated information, an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies, climate adaptation strategies, and a planning horizon out to 2050.
The CMAP allows City decision-makers, staff, and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions and identifies future strategies that, if implemented, will allow the community to achieve its emissions-reductions targets. In conjunction with existing local and state programs, these CMAP strategies provide a flexible path to reduce the community’s annual GHG emissions to 107,920 MTCO2e by 2030 (49 percent below 2005 levels) and 36,060 MTCO2e by 2050 (83 percent below 2005 levels). The City’s GHG reduction targets are to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, at a minimum. To ensure that the implementation process is efficient, the CMAP includes a work plan that identifies responsible departments, partners, time frames, and relative costs associated with each strategy.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
San Francisco Bay Area Basin Conditions
The SFBAAB comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County.
Air quality in the SFBAAB is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate 22 City of San Carlos, September 2021, 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/sancarlos/Document%20Center/City%20Hall/Departments%20And%20Divisions/City%20Mana ger/Sustainability/Climate%20Action/CMAP%20Final.pdf, accessed September 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-17
in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions, as described below:23
Meteorology: The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, that distorts normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range24 splits in the Bay Area, creating a western coast gap, the Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, the Carquinez Strait, which allows air to flow in and out of the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semipermanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow.
Upwelling of cold ocean water from below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the presence of the cold-water band, resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.
Predominant Wind Patterns: During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula.
Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais in Marin County, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San José when it meets the East Bay hills. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon, and the sea breeze deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the air in the lower atmosphere is warmer than the air above it. In the winter, stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds are frequent, as are periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes (i.e., conditions where there is little mixing because of little or no wind) are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the SFBAAB.
Wind Circulation: Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak—namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances (nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 11, 2024.
24 The Coast Ranges traverses California’s west coast from Humboldt County to Santa Barbara County. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-18 JANUARY 2025
flows carry the pollutants up-valley during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels. Inversions: An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). There are two types of inversions that occur regularly. Elevation inversions25 are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions26 are more common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations generally occur during inversions.
Temperature: Summer temperatures are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. On summer afternoons, the temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland; at night, this contrast usually decreases to less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the day the temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, and at night it is large.
Precipitation: The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November through March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys. During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low (i.e., air pollutants disperse more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under stagnant conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, where mixing and ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up.
Attainment Status of the SFBAAB
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the State and federal AAQS through the State Implementation Plan. Areas that meet AAQS are classified as attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Unclassified. A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
Attainment. A pollutant is in attainment if the AAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period.
25 When the air blows over elevated areas, it is heated as it is compressed into the side of the hill/mountain. When that warm air comes over the top, it is warmer than the cooler air of the valley. 26 During the night, the ground cools off, radiating the heat to the sky. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-19
Nonattainment. A pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of an AAQS for that pollutant in the area.
Nonattainment/Transitional. A subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.
The attainment status for the SFBAAB is shown in Table 4.2-3, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.
TABLE 4.2-3 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005) Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment (marginal) a PM10 – 24-hour Nonattainment Unclassified/ Attainment b PM2.5 – 24-hour and Annual Nonattainment Unclassified/ Attainment CO – 8-hour and 1-hour Attainment Attainment
NO2 – 1-hour Attainment Unclassified
SO2 – 24-hour and 1-hour Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Notes:
a. Severity classification current as of February 13, 2017. b. In December 2014, USEPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 National AAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.
Sources: California Air Resources Board, October 2020, Maps of State Area Designations, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-stateand-federal-area-designations, accessed September 12, 2024.
Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the city have been documented and measured by BAAQMD. BAAQMD has 30 operational monitoring stations around the Bay Area.27 The nearest station to the EIR Study Area is the Redwood City Monitoring Station, which monitors O3, NO2, and PM2.5. Data for PM10 is supplemented by the San José-Jackson Street Monitoring Station. Data from these monitoring stations are summarized in Table 4.2-4, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary, and shows occasional violations of the federal PM2.5 standard. Based on 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, July 2024, 2024 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/technical-services/air-monitoring-network-plans/2024_network_planpdf.pdf?rev=03780ced2a2a41909338416d1b2bc527&sc_lang=en, accessed September 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-20 JANUARY 2025
BAAQMD’s Impacted Communities Map, the City of San Carlos is not within a 24-hour PM2.5 or 8-hour Ozone exceedance area.28
TABLE 4.2-4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Pollutant/Standard a
Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded
and Maximum Levels
2020 2021 2023
Ozone (O3) a
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm (days exceed threshold)
State & Federal 8-hour ≥ 0.070 ppm (days exceed threshold) Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0
0.085
0.063
0 0
0.079
0.061
0 0
0.089
0.061
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) a
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Federal 1-Hour ≥ 0.100 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0
0.0405
0 0
0.0438
0 0
0.0552
Coarse Particulates (PM10) b
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
0 0
45.1 0
0 44.5
0 0
*
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) a
Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
0 30.1
0 27.4
1 41.0
Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; * = Data not available a. Data for O3, NO2 and PM2.5 obtained from the Redwood City Monitoring Station. b. Data for PM10 obtained from the San José-Jackson Street Monitoring Station.
Source: California Resources Board, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2021, 2022, and 2023), https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas.”29
28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2024, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-air-risk-evaluation-careprogram, accessed September 11, 2024. 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed September 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-21
Environmental Justice Communities
Disadvantaged communities identified by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES4) may be disproportionately affected by and vulnerable to poor air quality.30, 31 Figure 4.2-1, BAAQMD Overburdened Communities Map, shows the areas that, according to BAAQMD, are disproportionately burdened by pollution. These Overburdened Communities were mapped using the CES4, a tool advocated for by community groups and developed by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on behalf of the CalEPA.
The CES cumulative score is a cumulative measure of overall environmental justice burden based on 24 indicators, including pollution, social, and health indicators, four of which are specifically having to do with air quality or air pollution (see Figure 4.2-2, CES4 Indicator – Cumulative Score by Percentile).
BAAQMD uses the CES tool to identify environmental justice communities (referred to as Overburdened Communities) and areas of the San Francisco Bay Area where air pollution disparities are the greatest.
Placement of New Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD adopted Planning Healthy Places to provide a list of best practices that should be applied when placing sensitive land uses in areas with high levels of air pollution or in close proximity to local sources of air pollution.32 The overarching goal of this guidebook is to support and encourage infill development while promoting clean, healthy air for existing and future residents.
Figure 4.2-3, BAAQMD Siting Recommendations, identifies stationary sources (BAAQMD-permitted sources) in the EIR Study Area as well as major roadways where BAAQMD recommends either implementation of best management practices to reduce risk or preparation of site-specific analysis to ensure air quality compatibility.
The key observation in BAAQMD’s Planning Healthy Places is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks and benzene, and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. In Planning Healthy Places, BAAQMD provides a list of “Best Practices to Reduce Exposure to Local Air Pollution” that BAAQMD recommends lead agencies require for projects that introduce new receptors within the screening distances shown in Figure 4.2-1. These best practices include practices and technologies that reduce local traffic emissions, increase site buffering between receptors and emission sources, or alter 30 Under Senate Bill 535, disadvantaged communities are defined as the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations. 31 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, May 2023, CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Indicator Maps can be found at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2016, April. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planninghealthy-places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-22 JANUARY 2025
the design of proposed projects to remove receptors from locations expected to experience the highest pollutant concentrations.33
CalEnviroScreen Air Quality Indicators
As discussed above, CES is a mapping tool that helps identify the California communities most affected by many sources of pollution and where people are especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. People in environmental justice areas identified by CES may be disproportionately affected by and vulnerable to poor air quality.
CES’s “pollution burden” map identifies communities that are exposed to pollution from human activities, such as air pollution (ozone, PM2.5, DPM), water pollution (drinking water contaminants), and hazardous materials (pesticide use, children’s lead exposure, toxic releases), and traffic density. Figure
4.2-4, CES4 Indicator – Pollution Burden by Percentile, shows the pollution burden for the areas within the EIR Study Area relative to California. In CES, the pollution burden scope considers the disproportionate effect of pollution on environmental justice communities, because the score weighs socioeconomic factors (educational attainment, poverty, etc.) and sensitivity of the population (asthma rates and cardiovascular disease).
Though the causes of asthma are poorly understood, it is well established that exposure to traffic and outdoor air pollutants can trigger asthma attacks. Previous research has shown that children, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income Californians suffer disproportionately from asthma burdens, such as asthma attacks and asthma-like symptoms.34
Figure 4.2-5, CES4 – Diesel Particulate Matter by Percentile, provides an estimate of the percentile of DPM in the EIR Study Area relative to the rest of the state. The DPM percentile is based on spatial distribution of gridded DPM emissions from on-road and non-road sources in 2016 (tons/year). Exposure to DPM has been shown to have numerous adverse health effects including irritation to the eyes, throat, and nose; cardiovascular and pulmonary disease; and lung cancer.35 33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2016, May. Planning Healthy Places. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-healthy-places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 12, 2024.
34 California Air Resources Board, 2013, October. Higher ‘asthma burden’ among minorities, low-income groups tied to increased exposure to air pollution. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/higher-asthma-burden-among-minorities-low-incomegroups-tied-increased-exposure-air-pollution, accessed September 12, 2024. 35 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2021, October 13. CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 Report. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf, accessed October 14, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-28 JANUARY 2025
Existing Emissions
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory
Table 4.2-5, Existing Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory, EIR Study Area, identifies the existing criteria air pollutant emissions inventory using emission rates for year 2024 (baseline conditions). The inventories are based on existing land uses in the EIR Study Area. The year 2024 inventory represents the projected emissions currently generated by existing land uses using the baseline year 2024 emission factors for on-road vehicles.
TABLE 4.2-5 EXISTING REGIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS INVENTORY, EIR STUDY AREA Emission Source
EIR Study Area Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Transportation a 26 168 37 14
Energy b 11 211 16 16
Off-road Equipment c 144 89 4 3
Consumer Products d 586 - - -
Total 767 469 57 32
Emission Source
EIR Study Area Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Transportation a 5 29 6 2
Energy b 2 39 3 3
Off-road Equipment c 26 16 1 1
Consumer Products d 107 - - -
Total 140 84 10 6
Notes:
a. On-road transportation VMT is provided by VMT and modeled with EMFAC2021. VMT for the proposed project is based on the “project’s effect” of VMT in the EIR Study Area.
b. Building electricity and natural gas emissions are based on data provided by PG&E, PCE, and CalEEMod User’s Guide for natural gas criteria air pollutant emissions. The energy consumption rates for 2045 were adjusted to reflect the increase in housing units and employment within the EIR Study Area.
c. On-road vehicles and equipment are based on the OFFROAD2021 emissions inventory and include construction equipment and commercial equipment.
d. Household consumer product use based on the emissions factors in the CalEEMod Users Guide Version 2022.1.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
Stationary Sources
Stationary sources of air pollution—including complex sources such as metal smelting, wastewater treatment plants, and refineries as well as smaller facilities such as diesel generators, gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs or gas stations), and boilers—are regulated and subject to permit conditions established 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-29
by BAAQMD.36 Permitted stationary sources in the EIR Study Area are shown on Figure 4.2-3, BAAQMD Siting Recommendations.
Odors
Odors are associated with certain manufacturing processes and with some commercial operations (restaurants, etc.) that may be located near residential uses. Nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, and Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance.
4.2.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact if it would:
AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
AQ-5 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative air quality impacts in the area.
BAAQMD Plan-Level Significance Criteria
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental justice.
In June 2010, BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. These thresholds are designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. BAAQMD published a 36 Permitted facilities are mapped by BAAQMD and can be found at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3, accessed September 12, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-30 JANUARY 2025
new version of the Guidelines dated April 2023.37 This latest version of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was used to prepare the analysis in this Draft EIR.
Clean Air Plan Consistency
Under its plan-level review criteria, which apply to long-range plans such as the proposed project, BAAQMD recommends a consistency evaluation of the plan with its current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) control measures. BAAQMD considers a plan to be consistent with the applicable AQMP, which is currently the 2017 Clean Air Plan, if it is consistent with below considerations:
Does the project support the primary goals of the AQMP? Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQMP? Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQMP control measure? Does the project result in VMT growth that is equal to or less than the projected population growth? Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and Precursors
BAAQMD’s regional significance criteria for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds. Criteria for both the construction and operational phases of the project are shown.
TABLE 4.2-6 BAAQMD REGIONAL (MASS EMISSIONS) CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Air Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (Tons/year)
Project-Level
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None Plan-Level
All Criteria Air Pollutants No Net Increase
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
While the proposed project is a local long-range plan, the land use pattern envisioned by the proposed project has regional implications, such as interjurisdictional transportation behavior and jobs-to-housing ratios; therefore, it would have a less-than-significant impact related to air quality if it demonstrates “no net increase” in criteria air pollutants and risks and hazards. To demonstrate no net increase, BAAQMD’s Guidelines require two comparative analyses for the projected future emissions:
37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-31
Scenario 1: Project to Existing Conditions (base-to-future-year comparison). Compare the existing (base year) emissions with projected future year emissions plus the regional plan’s emissions (base year/regional plan comparison).
Scenario 2: Project to Future No Project Conditions (future baseline comparison). Compare projected future year emissions with projected future year emissions plus the regional plan’s emissions (no regional plan/regional plan comparison). This scenario isolates changes in emissions due solely to the project since both the scenarios consider emissions reductions from federal and state regulations.
If both comparative analyses demonstrate no net increase in emissions, the air quality and GHG impacts of the regional plan would be less than significant.
Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
If projects exceed the emissions in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds, emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status and would contribute to elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants.
However, for projects that exceed the emissions in Table 4.2-6, it is speculative to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the SFBAAB would be affected by the health effects cited above. BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the SFBAAB and at the present time, it has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978 (Friant Ranch).
Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National AAQS and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based standards established by the USEPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the AAQS. However, if a project within the EIR Study Area exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time the attainment standards are met in the SFBAAB. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-32 JANUARY 2025
Receptor Exposure to Pollutant Concentrations
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which are 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). Under a plan-level review, BAAQMD does not require an evaluation of CO hotspots. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the California and National AAQS for CO emissions, and CO concentrations in the SFBAAB have steadily declined. Because CO concentrations have improved, BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are met:
38 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
Community Risk and Hazards
BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The proposed project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction activities that could elevate concentrations of air pollutants at the nearby receptors. The thresholds for construction-related local community risk and hazard impacts are the same as for project operations.
BAAQMD has adopted screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.39 Constructionrelated TAC and PM2.5 impacts are addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific construction-related characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site and on-site receptors, as applicable.40,41
38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
39 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024. 40 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
41 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, January 5. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status#thirteen, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-33
Community Risk and Hazards: Project
Project-level emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from individual sources that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a potentially significant community health risk in the absence of a qualified community risk reduction plan:
An excess (i.e., increased) cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million Noncancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average PM2.542
Community Risk and Hazards: Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the 1,000-foot evaluation zone. A project would have a cumulatively considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds any of the following in the absence of a qualified community risk reduction plan:
An excess cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million (from all sources) Chronic noncancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0 0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5 (from all local sources)43 In February 2015, the OEHHA adopted new health risk assessment guidance that includes several efforts to be more protective of children’s health. These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and age-specific breathing rate.44
Odor Impacts
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.
This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance. BAAQMD has established odor 42 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024. 43 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
44 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, February 2015, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-34 JANUARY 2025
screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants.45 For a plan-level analysis, BAAQMD requires:
Potential existing and planned locations of odor sources to be identified. Policies to reduce odors.
4.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
Methodology
Emissions Quantification
This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the proposed project. BAAQMD has published CEQA Guidelines that provides local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts and was used in this analysis.
The EIR Study Area’s criteria air pollutant emissions inventory includes the following sectors:
Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC2021, version 1.0.2 web database. Model runs were based on daily VMT data provided by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. (see Appendix C, Noise Data, and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR) adjusted for the population and employment in the EIR Study Area in year 2024. The VMT provided includes the full trip length for land uses in the EIR Study Area. Consistent with CARB’s methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement, daily VMT was multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays to determine annual emissions. VMT for the proposed project includes all trip purposes, such as homebased trips, work commute trips, recreational trips, and school-related trips. Energy: Energy use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the EIR Study Area were modeled using natural gas data provided by PG&E and PCE. Residential energy and non-residential energy forecasts are adjusted for increases in housing units and employment, respectively. Off-road Equipment: Emission rates from CARB’s OFFROAD2021, version 1.0.7, web database were used to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions from light commercial and construction equipment in the EIR Study Area. OFFROAD2021 is a database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by CARB. Emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2021 for the County of San Mateo for year 2024. In order to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the city, light commercial equipment is estimated based on employment for the City of San Carlos as a percentage of San Mateo County. Construction equipment use is estimated based on service population for the City of San Carlos and County of San Mateo from data compiled by the US Census. The light 45 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-35
commercial equipment emissions forecast is adjusted for changes in employment in the EIR Study Area. It is assumed that construction emissions for the forecast year would be similar to historical levels but with updated emission rates for 2045. Annual emissions are derived by multiplying daily emissions by 365 days. Agricultural equipment was not evaluated in the EIR Study Area since there were no agricultural land use designations.
Area Sources: Area sources are based on the emission factors from the CalEEMod Users Guide for emissions generated from use of household consumer products and cleaning supplies.
Impacts of the Environment on a Project
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines include methodology for jurisdictions wanting to evaluate the potential quantitative impacts from placing sensitive receptors proximate to major air pollutant sources as part of individual projects. For assessing community risk and hazards for siting a new receptor, sources within a 1,000-foot radius of a project site are typically considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume roadways, large distribution centers, and permitted sources. For plan-level impact determination such as this EIR on the proposed project, the analysis is limited to whether the plan has policies or overlay zones to reduce impacts.46 BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines refers to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook for recommended planning goals, policies, and objectives to avoid or reduce impacts on sensitive receptors, including establishing buffer distances when siting new sensitive receptors near major air pollutant sources.
Buildout under the proposed project could result in siting sensitive uses (e.g., residential) near major sources of emissions (e.g., freeways, industrial uses, etc.). Developing new sensitive land uses near sources of emissions could expose people to potential air quality-related impacts. However, the purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project, as determined by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478). Thus, CEQA does not require analysis of the potential environmental effects from siting sensitive receptors near existing sources, and this type of analysis is not provided in the impact discussion below.
While it is generally not within the purview of CEQA to analyze impacts of the environment on a project, the proposed project includes policy guidance which would ensure priority of the health of San Carlos residents through enforcement of the SCMC and incorporation of design features to minimize air quality impacts and to achieve appropriate health standards.
46 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-36 JANUARY 2025
AQ-1 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
The following describes potential air quality impacts of consistency with the AQMP from the implementation of the proposed project.
Bay Area Clean Air Plan – Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors The proposed project plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD requires a consistency evaluation of a proposed plan with the current AQMP control measures.
As previously discussed, BAAQMD considers project consistency with the AQMP in accordance with the following:
Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures? In addition, long-range plans must demonstrate consistency with the projected growth rate of vehicle activity in VMT or vehicle trips under the plan, as follows:
Is the project VMT or vehicle trip increase less than or equal to the projected population increase? Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan Goals The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to attain the State and federal AAQS, reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area, reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
Furthermore, the 2017 Clean Air Plan lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target and the long-term GHG reduction goals.
Attain Air Quality Standards
BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan strategy is based on regional population and employment projections in the Bay Area compiled by ABAG, which are based in part on cities’ General Plan land use designations.
These demographic projections are incorporated into Plan Bay Area. Demographic trends incorporated into Plan Bay Area determine VMT in the Bay Area, which BAAQMD uses to forecast future air quality trends. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is based on data used in Plan Bay Area 2040. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 (State AAQS only).
Plan Bay Area 2040 has since been superseded by Plan Bay Area 2050 as a regional growth projection, as discussed in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, and the expected buildout under 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-37
the proposed project would not exceed the Plan Bay Area 2050 regional growth projections. 47 In
addition, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in VMT per service population compared to existing conditions (see Table 4.2-9, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the EIR Study Area). The Land Use (LU) Element of the proposed project also provides goals, policies, and actions that would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to growth in the EIR Study Area (see impact discussion POP-1 in Chapter 4.13). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce a substantial unplanned growth in population in the EIR Study Area and the majority of new housing is expected to be on infill parcels.
Thus, the population projections of the proposed project would be consistent with current regional projections. The emissions resulting from future development associated with the proposed project are included in BAAQMD projections, and future development accommodated under the proposed project would not hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National AAQS. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health
Future development and activities under the proposed project could result in new sources of TACs and PM2.5. Stationary sources, including smaller stationary sources associated with residential development (e.g., emergency generators and boilers), are subject to review by BAAQMD as part of the permitting process. Adherence to the BAAQMD permitting regulations would ensure that new stationary sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Mobile sources of air toxics (e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD. However, residential development associated with the proposed project would not generate substantial truck traffic or idling. Furthermore, individual development projects subject to CEQA would be required to achieve the project-level risk thresholds established by BAAQMD to ensure the sensitive receptor impact resulting from the subject development project would be less than significant.
Reduce GHG Emissions and Protect the Climate
Consistency of the proposed project with State, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions are discussed in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR.
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to adhere to statewide measures that have been adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets of SB 32 and AB 1279. The proposed project is consistent with regional strategies for infill development identified in Plan Bay Area 2050. While Impact GHG-1 identifies that the proposed project would increase emissions, the proposed project would result in a decrease in GHG emissions per service population and Impact GHG-2 identifies that the proposed project is consistent with State, regional, and local plans to reduce GHG emissions.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate, and the impact would be less than significant. 47 It should be noted that Plan Bay Area 2040 projections have been superseded by Plan Bay Area 2050 projections, but ABAG/MTC has not made updated projections available at the jurisdiction level, so it is not possible to compare projected growth under the proposed project to Plan Bay Area 2050 projections. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-38 JANUARY 2025
2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Table 4.2-7, Control Measures from the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, identifies the control measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan that are required by BAAQMD to reduce emissions for a wide range of both stationary and mobile sources. As shown in Table 4.2-7, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not hinder BAAQMD from implementing the control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant.
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Stationary
Source Control
Measures
SS 1 – Fluid Catalytic Cracking
in Refineries
SS 2 – Equipment Leaks
SS 3 – Cooling Towers
SS 4 – Refinery Flares
SS 5 – Sulfur Recovery Units
SS 6 – Refinery Fuel Gas
SS 7 – Sulfuric Acid Plants
SS 8 – Sulfur Dioxide from Coke
Calcining
SS 9 – Enhanced NSR
Enforcement for Changes in
Crude Slate
SS 10 – Petroleum Refining
Emissions Tracking
SS 11 – Petroleum Refining
Facility-Wide Emission Limits
SS 12 – Petroleum Refining
Climate Impacts Limit
SS 13 – Oil and Gas Production,
Processing and Storage
SS 14 – Methane from Capped
Wells
SS 15 – Natural Gas Processing
and Distribution
SS 16 – Basin-Wide Methane
Strategy
SS 17 – GHG BACT Threshold
SS 18 – Basin-Wide Combustion
Strategy
SS 19 – Portland Cement
SS 20 – Air Toxics Risk Cap and
Reduction from Existing
Facilities
SS 21 – New Source Review for
Toxics
SS 22 – Stationary Gas Turbines
SS 23 – Biogas Flares
Stationary and area sources are regulated directly by BAAQMD; therefore, as the implementing agency, new stationary and area sources within the EIR Study Area would be required to comply with BAAQMD regulations. BAAQMD routinely adopts/revises rules or regulations to implement the stationary source (SS) control measures to reduce stationary source emissions.
Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project involves typical urban residential and commercial uses that would not include major stationary sources of emissions. Boilers and emergency generators for multi-family residential products would be required to follow BAAQMD’s permitting requirements.
Major stationary source are more commonly associated with industrial manufacturing or warehousing. New industrial growth would be limited to the east side area of San Carlos. However, BAAQMD has existing regulations in place to ensure future development would not conflict with the applicable stationary source control measures (i.e., Best Available Control Technology [BACT] and Best Available Control Technology for Toxics [TBACT] requirements for commonly permitted sources subject to New Source Review in the Bay Area). Non-residential land uses may generate small quantities of stationary source emissions during project operation (e.g., emergency generators, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities); however, these small-quantity generators would require review by BAAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics, which would ensure consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would not hinder the ability of BAAQMD to implement these stationary source control measures.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-39
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
SS 24 – Sulfur Content Limits of
Liquid Fuels
SS 25 – Coatings, Solvents,
Lubricants, Sealants and
Adhesives
SS 26 – Surface Prep and
Cleaning Solvent
SS 27 – Digital Printing
SS 28 – LPG, Propane, Butane
SS 29 – Asphaltic Concrete
SS 30 – Residential Fan Type
Furnaces
SS 31 – General Particulate
Matter Emission Limitation
SS 32 – Emergency Backup
Generators
SS 33 – Commercial Cooking
Equipment
SS 34 – Wood Smoke
SS 35 – PM from Bulk Material
Storage, Handling and
Transport, Including Coke and
Coal
SS 36 – PM from Trackout
SS 37 – PM from Asphalt
Operations
SS 38 – Fugitive Dust
SS 39 – Enhanced Air Quality
Monitoring
SS 40 – Odors
Transportation
Control
Measures
TR 1 – Clean Air Teleworking
Initiative
TR 2 – Trip Reduction Programs
TR 3 – Local and Regional Bus
Service
TR 4 – Local and Regional Rail
Service
TR 5 – Transit Efficiency and
Use
TR 6 – Freeway and Arterial
Operations
TR 7 – Safe Routes to Schools
and Safe Routes to Transit
TR 8 – Ridesharing, Last-Mile
Connection
TR 9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian
Access and Facilities
TR 10 – Land Use Strategies
Transportation (TR) control measures are strategies to reduce vehicle emissions by reducing vehicle trip frequencies, personal vehicle reliance, vehicle trip distance, and vehicle idling. Although most of the transportation control measures are implemented at the regional level—that is, by MTC or Caltrans—the 2017 Clean Air Plan relies on local communities to assist with implementation of some measures.
Future development would be reviewed based on the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Land Use (LU) Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) Element, and Environmental Management (EM) Element contain the following goals, policies, and actions to expand the pedestrian and bicycle network:
Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
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.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-40 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
TR 11 – Value Pricing
TR 12 – Smart Driving
TR 13 – Parking Policies
TR 14 – Cars and Light Trucks
TR 15 – Public Outreach and
Education
TR 16 – Indirect Source Review
TR 17 – Planes
TR 18 – Goods Movement
TR 19 – Medium and Heavy
Duty Trucks
TR 20 – Ocean Going Vessels
TR 21 – Commercial Harbor
Craft
TR 22 – Construction, Freight
and Farming Equipment
TR 23 – Lawn and Garden
Equipment
Policy LU-1.3: Ensure that development within the TOD corridor maintains and improves the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.
Goal LU-2: Preserve and strengthen Downtown as the civic, cultural and social heart of the city.
Policy LU-2.2: Provide for bicycle and pedestrian safety Downtown.
Policy LU-2.11: Ensure convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to Downtown from surrounding areas and the TOD
corridor.
Goal LU-3: Promote connectivity and provide retail and services within walking distance of homes and employment areas.
Policy LU-3.10: Encourage the creation of safe, walkable environments that include elements such as wide, smooth sidewalks, good lighting, safe crosswalks, clear signage, curb bulb-outs, curb cuts, street furniture and trees and trafficcalming measures which allow people of all ages and abilities to exercise and safely access public transportation,
community centers and schools and goods and services.
Policy LU-3.13: Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential and commercial areas throughout San Carlos.
Action LU-3.3: Work with SamTrans and other public agencies to provide a public mass transit stop accessible to every home and business in San Carlos.
Goal CSH-2: To provide a safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation network for various transportation modes in addition to the automobile.
Policy CSH-3.3: The City shall support local school district efforts to reduce traffic through programs such as safe routes to school, school pools and school bus/shuttle programs. Policy CSH-3.8: The City shall conƟnue to evaluate service levels metrics as provided by the City’s TransportaƟon
Significance Criteria as adopted November 2024 (ResoluƟon 2024-118). The City recognizes that certain development project(s) may cause these guidelines to be exceeded. The City may approve such development project(s) if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the effects of exceeding the thresholds as set forth in the TransportaƟon Significance Criteria.
Policy CSH-3.16: The City shall support adequate access to affordable transportation alternatives for people with
impaired mobility.
Action CSH-3.2: The City shall consider adoption of a Transportation Impact Fee for new development to support city-wide Transportation Demand Measures.
Action CSH-3.4: The City shall encourage City employees to utilize alternative transportation through incentive,
ridesharing and guaranteed ride home programs.
Action CSH-3.5: The City shall coordinate with adjacent communities and responsible agencies to provide an
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-41
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
interconnected system of pedestrian ways, trails, bikeways and transit routes.
Action CSH-3.9: The City shall support San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) policies on Congestion Management.
Goal CSH-7: Contribute to a comprehensive regional trail system for alternative transportation and outdoor recreation purposes. Policy CSH-7.3: Financing and implementation of street modifications for pedestrian or bicycle use shall, whenever possible, be integrated with other related programs,
including, but not limited to: street and road projects, street or sidewalk maintenance projects and traffic mitigation programs.
Policy CSH-7.4: Support traffic controls that recognize bicycles and pedestrians.
Policy CSH-7.6: Support the provision of railcars sufficiently equipped for use by bicyclists.
Policy CSH-7.8: The local public path and trail system should be linked with existing private and regional systems and the road system.
Action CSH-7.3: Provide continuity to bike routes within the City and interjurisdictionally.
Action CSH-7.4: As lands are subdivided, dedication of trail and path easements should be required where appropriate as a part of the City and County’s trail and path system.
Subdividers should dedicate, construct and maintain trails and paths wherever feasible.
Goal EM-11: Promote and expand public and alternative modes of transportation.
Policy EM-11.4: Provide an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfares that connects jobs and housing to other city destinations, as recommended in the San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy EM-11.9: Coordinate with major employers,
neighboring municipalities, and transit agencies and providers to enhance regional transit and shuttle service.
Policy EM-11.10: Evaluate and encourage new forms of mass transit.
Action EM-11.1: Implement measures in the Climate Action Plan to reduce transportation emissions.
Action EM-11.2: Implement traffic calming devices to
increase roadway safety for bicycles and pedestrians
Action EM-11.4: Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, the County and regional agencies to expand bicycle
connections to regional destinations.
Energy and
Climate
Control
Measures
EN 1 – Decarbonize Electricity
Production
EN 2 – Renewable Energy
Decrease Electricity Demand
The energy and climate (EN) control measures are intended to reduce energy use as a means to reducing adverse air quality emissions.
Future development would be reviewed based on the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Land Use (LU) Element 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-42 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
and Environmental Management (EM) Element contain the
following goals, policies, and action that align with the City’s goals to meet the State’s carbon neutrality initiatives:
Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Policy LU-8.18: Encourage “green building” practices in new development and redevelopment, such as those that make a building more energy efficient and reduces its effect on human health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, maintenance and operation.
Policy LU-8.19: Residential and mixed-use structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, minimize obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, minimize interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the Objective Design Standards.
Goal EM-9: Reduce energy consumed citywide.
Policy EM-9.1: Provide assistance and support efforts for increased energy efficiency for businesses and residences through a combination of incentives and regulations.
Policy EM-9.2: Support on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production such as solar panels, wind turbines and biomass facilities.
Action EM-9.3: Review and amend the Zoning Ordinance to identify and reduce barriers to the establishment of on-site energy generators.
Furthermore, new development would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with these energy and climate control measures.
Buildings
Control
Measures
BL 1 – Green Buildings
BL 2 – Decarbonize Buildings
BL 3 – Market-Based Solutions
BL 4 – Urban Heat Island
Mitigation
The buildings (BL) control measures focus on working with local governments to facilitate adoption of best GHG emissions control practices and policies.
Future development would be reviewed based on the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Land Use (LU) Element and Environmental Management (EM) Element contain the
following goals, policies, and action to promote energy efficiency and sustainability:
Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Policy LU-8.18: Encourage “green building” practices in new development and redevelopment, such as those that make a building more energy efficient and reduces its effect on human health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, maintenance and operation.
Goal EM-9: Reduce energy consumed citywide.
Policy EM-9.5: Design all new construction and major
remodels of government agency buildings to relevant green building standards.
Policy EM-9.6: Encourage new private construction and major remodels to be designed to meet or exceed Green Uniform Building Code requirements.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-43
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Policy EM-9.7: Implement energy efficiency in City-owned and -operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs and serve as a model for the community.
Action EM-9.2: Adopt a Green Building Code as called for in the Climate Action Plan.
In addition, as stated, new developments accommodated under the proposed project would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the buildings control measures.
Agriculture
Control
Measures
AG 1 – Agricultural Guidance
and Leadership
AG 2 – Dairy Digesters
AG 3 – Enteric Fermentation
AG 4 – Livestock Waste
Agricultural practices in the Bay Area account for a small portion, roughly 1.5 percent, of the Bay Area GHG emissions inventory. The GHGs from agriculture include methane and nitrous oxide, in addition to carbon dioxide. While the Agriculture (AG) control measures target larger scale farming practices that are not included in the proposed project, future development sites in the EIR Study Area do not include any that currently host commercial agricultural operations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with these agriculture control measures.
Natural and
Working Lands
Control
Measures
NW 1 – Carbon Sequestration
in Rangelands
NW 2 – Urban Tree Planting
NW 3 – Carbon Sequestration
in Wetlands
The control measures for the natural and working lands sector focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands.
Future development would be reviewed based on the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Land Use (LU) Element and Environmental Management (EM) Element contain the
following goals and policies to promote carbon sequestration:
Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
Policy LU-1.9: To the extent possible, retain the channels, floodplains, riparian corridors (including suitable setbacks from top of bank) and closely associated upland areas of Cordilleras, Brittan and Pulgas Creeks and their tributaries as significant open space areas. These areas should be
maintained in their natural state to function as appropriate open space areas, greenbelt and to support a riparian habitat. 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-2.4: 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.
Goal EM-3: Enhance the urban forest
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-44 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
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.
Water Control
Measures
WR 1 – Limit GHGs from
publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs)
WR 2 – Support Water
Conservation
The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes measures to reduce water use.
Future development would be reviewed based on the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Environmental Management (EM) Element contains the following goal and policies to increase plumbing water efficiency and reduce landscape water use:
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-5.3: Promote the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences and by commercial and industrial consumers.
Policy EM-5.4: Encourage the use of drought-tolerant plants and efficient watering techniques for all City landscaping. Policy EM-5.5: Recycled water distribution system (purple pipe) should be used for landscaping and other non-potable water uses for residential, commercial and industrial customers, where technically and financially feasible.
Super-GHG
Control
Measures
SL 1 – Short-Lived Climate
Pollutants
SL 2 – Guidance for Local
Planners
SL 3 – GHG Monitoring and
Emissions Measurements
Network
Super-GHGs include methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases.
The compounds are sometimes referred to as short-lived climate pollutants because their lifetime in the atmosphere is generally fairly short. Measures to reduce super GHGs are addressed on a sector-by-sector basis in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Through ongoing implementation of the City’s CMAP, the City will continue to reduce local GHG emissions, meet State, regional, and local reduction targets, which would ensure implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with these SL control measures.
Future development would be reviewed based on the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Land Use (LU) Element and Environmental Management (EM) Element contain the
following goals, policies, and action for encouraging use of renewable energy and reduction in GHG emissions:
Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
Policy LU-1.8: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to address the new multiple family and mixed-use designations as part of the 2023 Focused General Plan Update.
Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Policy LU-8.18: Encourage “green building” practices in new development and redevelopment, such as those that make a building more energy efficient and reduces its effect on human health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, maintenance and operation.
Goal EM-9: Reduce energy consumed citywide.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-45
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Policy EM-9.5: Design all new construction and major
remodels of government agency buildings to relevant green building standards.
Policy EM-9.6: Encourage new private construction and major remodels to be designed to meet or exceed Green Uniform Building Code requirements.
Policy EM-9.7: Implement energy efficiency in City-owned and -operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs and serve as a model for the community.
Action EM-9.2: Adopt a Green Building Code as called for in the Climate Action Plan.
Goal EM-7: Develop a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and develop and implement a Climate Action Plan to address San Carlos’ contribution to Global Climate Change.
Policy EM-7.3: Participate in regional, State and federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts resulting from climate change.
Policy EM-7.6: Support greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reduction measures and climate change resiliency strategies that are cost effective and help create an environmentally sustainable, livable and equitable community. The cost of implementation to the City and the private sector shall be considered prior to the adoption of any GHG reduction
strategy.
Further Study
Control
Measures
FSM SS 1 – Internal Combustion
Engines
FSM SS 2 – Boilers, Steam
Generator and Process Heaters
FSM SS 3 – GHG Reductions
from Non Cap-and Trade
Sources
FSM SS 4 – Methane
Exemptions from Wastewater
Regulation
FSM SS 5 – Controlling start-up,
shutdown, maintenance, and
malfunction (SSMM) Emissions
FSM SS 6 – Carbon Pollution
Fee
FSM SS 7 – Vanishing Oils and
Rust Inhibitors
FSM SS 8 – Dryers, Ovens and
Kilns
FSM SS 9 – Omnibus
Rulemaking to Achieve
Continuous Improvement
FSM BL 1 – Space Heating
FSM AG 1 – Wineries
The majority of the further study control measures apply to sources regulated directly by BAAQMD. Because BAAQMD is the
implementing agency, new and existing sources of stationary and area sources in the EIR Study Area would be required to comply with these additional further study control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 19, 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-46 JANUARY 2025
Regional Growth Projections for VMT and Population
One of the criteria for determining consistency with the current AQMP is comparing the EIR Study Area’s VMT growth with its population growth over the same planning horizon. Kittelson and Associates analyzed VMT for the proposed project to estimate the weekday citywide VMT generation for the proposed project in the Baseline Year (2024) and Cumulative Year (2045) with Project scenario. (See Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR for a more detailed VMT discussion.) Table 4.2-8, EIR Study Area Projected Generated Total VMT, displays the VMT estimates resulting from implementation of the proposed project, based on Kittelson and Associates’ analysis.
TABLE 4.2-8 EIR STUDY AREA PROJECT GENERATED TOTAL DAILY VMT Category Baseline Year (2024)b Cumulative Year (2045)b Net Change Total VMT a 773,123 1,335,160 562,037
Notes:
a. The above estimates are drawn directly from the Kittelson and Associates VMT Analysis (2024) prepared for the proposed project, which assumes a total 2045 buildout of 21,560 households. See Table 3-1, Proposed General Plan 2045 Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.
b. VMT accounts for passenger vehicles and trucks that have an origin or destination in the City using a transportation origin-destination methodology. Accounting of VMT is based on the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) created under Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), which reduces internal-external and external-internal VMT by 50 percent.
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2024.
Table 4.2-9, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the EIR Study Area, displays the Baseline Year (2024) No Project and Cumulative Year (2045) with Project estimates.
TABLE 4.2-9 COMPARISON OF THE CHANGE IN POPULATION AND VMT IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Category Base Year (2024)
Cumulative Year
(2045)
Change from Existing
Change %
Service Population a 51,610 93,770 42,160 82%
Daily VMT b 773,123 1,335,160 562,037 73%
VMT/Service Population c 15.0 14.2 (0.8) (5)%
Notes:
a. Service Population accounts for total population and jobs. See Table 3-1, Proposed General Plan 2045 Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.
b. Kittelson and Associates, 2024. VMT accounts for passenger vehicles and trucks that have an origin or destination in the City using a transportation origin-destination methodology. Accounting of VMT is based on the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) created under Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), which reduces internal-external and external-internal VMT by 50 percent. c. Daily per Capita VMT estimates are identified by dividing the Daily VMT estimates by the city population for the corresponding year. It should be noted that the Daily VMT is identified on a per service population basis due to the inter-regional commuting behavior of residents in and around the city, and total Daily VMT estimates include nonresidential VMT.
Source: Kittelson and Associates, PlaceWorks, 2024.
Consistency with BAAQMD’s AQMP requires that the VMT increase be proportional to or lower than the projected population increase from the proposed project (e.g., generate the same or less VMT per capita). However, because the proposed project accommodates both residential and nonresidential growth, a better indicator of how efficiently the city is growing can be made by comparing the increase in VMT to the increase in service population (e.g., generate the same or less VMT per service population). This approach is similar to the efficiency metrics for GHG emissions, which consider the total service population when calculating project efficiency. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-47
VMT estimates based on data provided by Kittelson and Associations were calculated for the EIR Study Area. As shown in Table 4.2-9, implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase for daily VMT by 562,037 vehicle miles per day in the EIR Study Area (73 percent increase) and lead to a lower VMT per service population than existing conditions (5 percent decrease). Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and this impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Environmental Justice
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require a consistency analysis of the proposed project with applicable Community Emission Reduction Plans (CERPs) and local environmental justice policies.
Environmentally overburdened, underserved, and economically distressed communities may be subject to a higher risk of pollution-related health effects than the general population because they may be exposed to higher pollutant concentrations; they may experience a larger health impact at a given pollutant concentration; or they may be adversely affected by lower pollutant concentrations than the general population. The most critical air pollutant affecting health in the SFBAAB is PM2.5, which includes DPM. The burden of breathing unhealthy air is often disproportionately borne by low-income communities and communities of color, many of which are situated closer to busy highways, ports, factories, and other pollution sources.48
The Land Use (LU) Element and Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to air quality, including sensitive populations. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to reduce environmental effects on vulnerable and sensitive populations:
Goal LU-8: Ensure excellence in all development design. Policy LU-8.4: Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions between buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential. Goal EM-6: Support atmospheric conditions that are clean, healthful, provides maximum visibility and meets air quality standards.
Policy EM-6.4: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines that establish minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. Exceptions may be made for projects that do not meet the distance requirements, but can be determined compatible with adjacent uses through a project-specific study that determines potential health risk. Mitigation measures shall be required to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.
48 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022, Best Practices for Centering Environmental Justice, Health, and Equity, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-2- environmental-justicefinal-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-48 JANUARY 2025
Policy EM-6.5: Consider potential impacts from land uses that may emit pollution and/or odors when locating air pollution sources near sensitive receptors. Air pollution sources could include freeways, industrial uses, hazardous materials storage, waste disposal/transfer stations and other similar uses.
As shown above, the proposed project considers measures to reduce emissions and improve community health within Overburdened Communities consistent with BAAQMD’s environmental justice goals. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with BAAQMD’s environmental justice goals. As shown in Table 4.2-9, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the EIR Study Area, and discussed above, the proposed project would be considered consistent with BAAQMD’s AQMP due to the decrease in VMT per service population that would result in 2045. Therefore, the land use pattern envisioned by the proposed project would be considered consistent with BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, and this impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AQ-2 Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
The proposed project guides growth within the EIR Study Area by designating land uses in the proposed land use diagram and through implementation of its goals, policies, and actions. New development would increase air pollutant emissions in the EIR Study Area and contribute to the overall emissions inventory in the SFBAAB. A discussion of health effects associated with air pollutant emissions generated by operational activities is included in Section 4.2.1.1, Air Pollutants of Concern.
Construction
The proposed project would not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure; however, future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would result in shortterm construction-related criteria pollutant emissions that have the potential to have an adverse effect on air quality. Although the exact coverage, location, or duration of future construction projects is unknown at the time of preparation of this program-level Draft EIR, short-term criteria pollutant emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities associated with individual development projects. ROG and NOX emissions are primarily associated with gasoline and diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) are primarily associated with site preparation and vary as a function of such parameters as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and VMT by construction vehicles on- and off-site. Typical construction equipment associated with development and redevelopment projects includes dozers, graders, excavators, loaders, and trucks.
Due to the built-out nature of the EIR Study Area is largely built-out, new development projects would be infill development projects, many of which will likely require the demolition of existing structures to 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-49
make room for newer ones. Fugitive dust emissions would typically be greatest during building demolition, site preparation, and grading activities due to the disturbance of soils and transport of material. NOX emissions would also result from the combustion of diesel fuels used to power off-road heavy-duty vehicles and equipment (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, excavators). The types and quantities of equipment, as well as the duration of construction activities, would be dependent on site-specific conditions for each individual project. Larger development projects would require more equipment over a longer timeframe than that required for redevelopment of a single, residential home.
BAAQMD does not recommend plan-level thresholds of significance for construction emissions; however, BAAQMD does maintain and recommend project-level thresholds of significance for construction emissions that future development projects facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to. In addition, BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify and recommend a series of “Basic” measures to control and reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions. For all projects, BAAQMD recommends implementation of nine Basic Construction Measures to reduce construction fugitive dust and determines a project’s fugitive dust impacts during construction to be less than significant if the following Basic Construction Measures are incorporated into project construction:49 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loos material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. Al vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Unpaved roads providing access to the sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
As previously discussed, a criterion identified by BAAQMD for determining plan-level significance with respect to criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors is determining project consistency with the 49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, Project-Level Air Quality Impacts, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-5-projectair-quality-impacts_final-pdf.pdf?rev=de582fe349e545989239cbbc0d62c37a&sc_lang=enn, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-50 JANUARY 2025
current AQMP control measures, which are intended to ensure the region’s achievement and maintenance of attainment of federal and State AAQS. As the SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for PM, mitigation would be required to ensure that individual development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant construction fugitive dust impacts. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant without mitigation.
Impact AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would generate emissions that would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) regional significance thresholds and cumulative contribute to the nonattainment designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current BAAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions.
Measures shall require implementation of current BAAQMD Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions. At the time of preparation of this EIR, such practices include:
Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compact layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-51
Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) and shall be verified by the City.
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 contains BAAQMD’s “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects” in the bullet points listed above and contained in BAAQMD’s 2023 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which are recommended by BAAQMD to ensure construction fugitive dust emissions are less than significant.
As such, fugitive dust emissions would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ2.1. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 has the potential to reduce construction emissions, potential future development projects (individually or cumulatively) could still exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant and unavoidable construction-related regional air impacts from construction equipment exhaust. This finding does not preclude a finding of less-than-significant impacts at the project level.
Operation
Operational (long-term) activities associated with future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project could generate a substantial increase in long-term criteria air pollutant emissions from existing conditions that could exceed BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment). Mobile-source criteria air pollutant emissions are based on the traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson and Associates for this EIR. The emissions forecast for the EIR Study Area under the proposed project compared to existing conditions (with 2045 emissions rates) is shown in Table 4.2- 10, Proposed Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast (Scenario 1, Comparison to Existing Conditions). This is “Scenario 1” as required by BAAQMD and explained under the “BAAQMD Significance Criteria” subheading in Section 4.2.2, Standards of Significance. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-52 JANUARY 2025
As shown in Table 4.2-10, implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from existing conditions. This increase is based on the difference between existing land uses and land uses associated with development allowed under the proposed project, as well as an estimate of population and employment in the EIR Study Area in the 2045 horizon year.
Therefore, future development projects would generate operational (long-term) air pollutant emissions that exceed BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG and NOX in 2045. Emissions of ROG and NOX that exceed the BAAQMD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the O3 nonattainment designation of the SFBAAB. Emissions of PM10 that exceed BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB.
As shown in Table 4.2-11, Net Change in Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast (Scenario 2, Comparison to Future No Project Conditions), compared to existing baseline year conditions, all criteria air pollutant emissions are projected to increase from current levels due to growth associated within the TABLE 4.2-10 PROPOSED PROJECT CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FORECAST (SCENARIO 1, COMPARISON
TO EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Year
Criteria Air Pollutants (Tons/Year)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Land Uses – Year 2024
On-Road Transportation 5 29 6 2
Energy 2 39 3 3
Off-road Equipment 26 16 1 1
Consumer Products 107 - - -
Total Existing Land Uses (tons/year) 140 84 10 6
Proposed Land Use Plan – Year 2045 Total Buildout
On-Road Transportation 4 19 11 4
Energy 4 66 5 5
Off-road Equipment 54 36 1 1
Consumer Products 187 - - -
Proposed Land Uses Total (tons/year) 248 121 17 9
Change in Emissions from Existing Land Uses (Year 2045) On-Road Transportation (1) (10) 4 1
Energy 1 28 2 2
Off-road Equipment 28 20 0 0
Consumer Products 80 - - -
Net Change from Existing Land Uses (Year 2045) 108 37 7 3 BAAQMD Threshold (Tons/Year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-53
city through 2045. Net operational (long-term) emissions for ROG and NOX would remain above the BAAQMD significance thresholds through 2045 without the proposed project, largely due to the increase in household consumer products used in residential development; ongoing use of offroad equipment for landscaping, commercial operations, and construction; and natural gas use for space and water heating.
It should be noted that the City adopted Ordinance No. 1588 in 2022 to require most new development to be all-electric, precluding the installation of new natural gas plumbing; however, there are exceptions for specific project conditions and types, and for additions and alterations. Because the extent of implementation of this ordinance is not known through 2045, it was not accounted for in the energy source emissions calculations prepared for this analysis. This is “Scenario 2” as required by BAAQMD and explained under the “BAAQMD Significance Criteria” subheading in Section 4.2.2, Standards of Significance.
TABLE 4.2-11 NET CHANGE IN REGIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FORECAST (SCENARIO 2,
COMPARISON TO FUTURE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS)
Year
Criteria Air Pollutants (Tons/Year)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Land Uses – Year 2045
On-Road Transportation 3 15 9 3
Energy 4 66 5 5
Off-road Equipment 54 36 1 1
Consumer Products 187 - - -
Existing Baseline Land Uses Total 247 118 15 9
Proposed Project Land Use – Year 2045
On-Road Transportation 4 19 11 4
Energy 4 66 5 5
Off-road Equipment 54 36 1 1
Consumer Products 187 - - -
Proposed Land Uses Total 248 121 17 9
Change in Emissions from Existing Baseline
On-Road Transportation 1 4 2 1
Energy 0 0 0 0
Off-road Equipment 0 0 0 0
Consumer Products 0 0 0 0
Net Change from Existing Baseline 1 4 2 1
BAAQMD Threshold (Tons/Year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Notes: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrous oxides; PM10 = particulate matter (aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less); PM2.5 = particulate matter (aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less).
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-54 JANUARY 2025
As shown in Table 4.2-11, with the proposed project, operational emissions in 2045 would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant long-term regional air quality impacts.
Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
As previously mentioned, BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance does not require an emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants for plan-level analysis; however, BAAQMD recommends that one method used for determining plan-level impact significance is to analyze the proposed plan’s consistency with the current AQMP control measures. As discussed in Table 4.2-7, Control Measures from the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the current AQMP control measures, and this impact would be less than significant.
Proposed Plan VMT and Population Growth
As previously mentioned, BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance does not require an emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants for plan-level analysis; however, BAAQMD recommends that the second method for determining plan-level impact significance is to analyze the proposed plan’s projected VMT growth versus its projected population growth from existing conditions through its planning horizon year (2045).
If a proposed plan’s projected VMT growth outpaces its projected population growth, then that proposed plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants, and this impact would be potentially significant. As discussed in impact discussion AQ-1, the daily per service population VMT facilitated by the proposed project would constitute an approximately 5 percent decrease through 2045. Therefore, the forecasted VMT growth would not outpace the forecasted population growth facilitated by the proposed project. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
Growth within the EIR Study Area would cumulatively contribute to operational (long-term) regional criteria air pollutant emissions impacts. However, the Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) Element and Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to air quality, including operational phase (long-term) emissions. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to these long-term, regional criteria air pollutant emissions:
Goal CSH-2: To provide a safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation network for various transportation modes in addition to the automobile.
Policy CSH-2.3: Access to public transportation facilities should be convenient and designed to encourage use of public transit.
Goal CSH-3: Maintain a street and highway system which accommodates future growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service.
Policy CSH-3.3: Support the incorporation of Transportation Demand Measures in new development to reduce traffic impacts.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-55
Goal CSH-6: Integrate transportation and land use.
Policy CSH-6.2: Support transit-oriented development with mixed, dense land use that reduces the need to travel and that is linked to good transit. The City shall work with local, regional and State representatives to encourage the support and funding of transit oriented development projects.
Goal EM-11: Promote and expand public and alternative modes of transportation. Policy EM-11.4: Provide an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfares that connects jobs and housing to other city destinations, as recommended in the San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy EM-11.6: Encourage employers to incentivize employee use of mass transit and alternative modes of transportation.
Policy EM-11.9: Coordinate with major employers, neighboring municipalities, transit agencies and providers to enhance regional transit and shuttle service. Policy EM-11.10: Evaluate and encourage new forms of mass transit. Policy EM-11.11: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance that contains strategies to reduce vehicle trips. Policy EM-11.12: Include in the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance a requirement that new office development over a certain size include showers and safe and secure bike racks to encourage employees to bicycle to work.
While BAAQMD rules and the General Plan goals and policies listed above may reduce operation-related (long-term) regional air quality impacts of individual projects accommodated under the proposed project to less than significant, due to the magnitude of development allowed, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects would exceed the threshold. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB, resulting in a significant impact.
Impact AQ-2.2: Operation of development projects under the proposed project could generate operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) regional significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.
If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMDadopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-56 JANUARY 2025
measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs. Expanding bikeway networks.
Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards. Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems. Requiring all-electric buildings.
Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-emission alternatives. Implementing organics diversion programs.
Expanding urban tree planting.
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Buildout in accordance with the proposed project could generate long-term emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2, in addition to the proposed project goals and policies, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project goals and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within the EIR Study Area.
This EIR quantifies the increase in criteria air pollutants emissions in the EIR Study Area. However, at the programmatic level, it is not feasible to quantify the increase in toxic air contaminants (TAC) from stationary sources associated with the proposed project or meaningfully correlate how regional criteria air pollutant emissions above BAAQMD’s significance thresholds correlate with basin wide health impacts.
To determine cancer and noncancer health risk, the location, velocity of emissions, meteorology and topography of the area, and locations of receptors are equally important as model parameters as the quantity of TAC emissions. The white paper prepared by the Association of Environmental Professionals’ Climate Change Committee, We Can Model Regional Emissions, But Are the Results Meaningful for CEQA, describes several of the challenges of quantifying local effects—particularly health risks—for large-scale, regional projects, and these are applicable to both criteria air pollutants and TACs. Similarly, the two amicus briefs filed by the air districts on the Friant Ranch case describe two positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility, variables, and reliability of results for determining specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants. The discussions also include the distinction between criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs with respect to health risks.
The following summarizes major points about the infeasibility of assessing health risks of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs associated with implementation of a general plan. The white paper and amicus briefs are provided in Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-57
To achieve and maintain air quality standards, BAAQMD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for regional and localized air quality impacts for both construction and operational phases of a local plan or project. The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the air basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a plan or project that are expected not to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. By analyzing the plan’s emissions against the thresholds, an EIR assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable ambient air quality standards and exposure levels.
BAAQMD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the City with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. For criteria air pollutants, exceedance of the regional significance thresholds cannot be used to correlate a project to quantifiable health impacts unless emissions are sufficiently high to use a regional model. BAAQMD has not provided the methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and their effect on health (note Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR provides the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s amicus brief and South Coast Air Quality Management District’s amicus brief).
Ozone concentrations depend on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Secondary formation of particulate matter and ozone can occur far from sources as a result of regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g., low-level jet stream). Photochemical modeling depends on all emission sources in the entire domain (i.e., modeling grid). Low resolution and spatial averaging produce “noise” and modeling errors that usually exceed individual source contributions. Because of the complexities of predicting groundlevel ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California ambient air quality standards, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.
Current models used in CEQA air quality analyses are designed to estimate potential project construction and operation emissions for defined projects. The estimated emissions are compared to significance thresholds, which are keyed to reducing emissions to levels that will not interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. This serves to protect public health in the overall region, but there is currently no CEQA methodology to determine the impact of emissions (e.g., pounds per day) on future concentration levels (e.g., parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter) in specific geographic areas. CEQA thresholds, therefore, are not specifically tied to potential health outcomes in the region.
The EIR must provide an analysis that is understandable for decision making and public disclosure.
Regional-scale modeling may provide a technical method for this type of analysis, but it does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to connect the magnitude of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to health effects without speculation. Additionally, this type of analysis is not feasible at a 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-58 JANUARY 2025
general plan level because the location of emissions sources and quantity of emissions are not known. However, because cumulative development within the EIR Study Area would exceed the regional significance thresholds, this EIR finds that the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SFBAAB.
In summary, as described above, implementation of the proposed project could generate emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOX. The proposed project includes goals and policies to reduce these long-term regional criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2 requires future development in San Carlos that is subject to CEQA (i.e., is a discretionary project) to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City of San Carlos for review and approval prior to project approval by the City. Where the technical assessment determines the BAAQMD -adopted thresholds are exceeded, the applicants for new development projects would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, the impact is found to be significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of lessthan-significant impacts for future development projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, no additional mitigating measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
AQ-3 The proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Implementation of the proposed project would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels such that it would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations.
Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.
Construction Community Risk and Hazards
Future development projects would temporarily elevate concentrations of TACs and DPM in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time due to this analysis being conducted at a program level—including phasing of future individual projects, construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment—construction emissions are evaluated qualitatively in accordance with BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance. Subsequent environmental review of future development projects subject to CEQA would be required to assess potential impacts under BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. However, construction emissions associated with the proposed project could exceed BAAQMD’s project level and cumulative significance thresholds for community risk and hazards. As recommended by CARB, applicants for construction within 1,000 feet of residential and other sensitive land uses (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, and day care centers), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, are required to prepare construction HRAs in accordance with policies and procedures of the OEHHA and BAAQMD to identify and mitigate health risk impacts from construction. The latest OEHHA guidelines are required to be applied for the analysis, including age 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-59
sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children ages 0 to 16 years. If the construction HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the respective threshold established by BAAQMD—project-level risk of ten in a million in all other areas; PM2.5 emissions that exceed 0.3 µg/m3 ;
or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0—the applicant would be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks below the respective threshold, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include, but are not limited to:
Use of construction equipment rated as United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Interim or higher for equipment of 50 horsepower or more. Use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.
The following proposed project policies from the Environmental Management (EM) Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to air quality, including construction health risks. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to reduce potential health risks and protect sensitive receptors from poor air quality in the EIR Study Area:
Goal EM-6: Support atmospheric conditions that are clean, healthful, provides maximum visibility and meets air quality standards.
Policy EM-6.3: Support the reduction of emissions of particulates from wood burning appliances, construction activity, automobiles, trucks and other sources. Policy EM-6.4: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines that establish minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. Exceptions may be made for projects that do not meet the distance requirements, but can be determined compatible with adjacent uses through a project-specific study that determines potential health risk. Mitigation measures shall be required to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.
Policy EM-6.6: BAAQMD recommended measures to reduce PM10 and exhaust emissions associated with construction shall be applied to new development in San Carlos. Goal ESPS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials. Policy ESPS-5.11: Encourage the use of green building practices to reduce potentially hazardous materials in construction materials.
Therefore, with implementation of the General Plan goals and policies, construction-related health risk impacts associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-60 JANUARY 2025
Operational
Future development projects could cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels such that it would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects. Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of TACs and PM2.5 include industrial and manufacturing (stationary sources), warehousing land uses that have the potential to generate DPM from onsite equipment, and mobile sources (trucks). While these types of land uses are not prevalent in the EIR Study Area, commercial and retail uses that generate small and medium sized truck trips for deliveries could similarly generate localized substantial concentrations of TACs and PM2.5. Additionally, operation of new land uses consistent with the proposed project could generate new sources of criteria air pollutants and TACs in the EIR Study Area associated with CO hotspots. The following describes potential localized operational air quality impacts from implementation of the proposed project.
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO, called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm.
Since CO is produced in the greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
An overarching goal of the Plan Bay Area 2050 is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle VMT and associated GHG emissions reductions. As described in impact discussion GHG-2 in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of the Plan Bay Area 2050. Additionally, the proposed project would not hinder the capital improvements outlined in C/CAG’s CMP. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the CMP.
Furthermore, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact.50 Implementation of the proposed project would result in hourly traffic increases at intersections across the EIR Study Area largely due to an increase in population and employment through 2045.
According to traffic volume data provided by W-Trans (2024), the intersection that would experience the greatest traffic volumes in 2045 would be Industrial Road at Holly Street, with an estimated 50,990 average daily trips (ADT). As an industry standard, the ADT are divided by 10 to identify the estimated peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection. Based on adjusting the ADT to identify the peak hour 50 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-61
volumes, the intersection of Industrial Road at Holly Street would experience an estimated 5,099 peak hour vehicle trips. As such, the intersection that would experience the greatest peak hour trips in 2045 would be substantially below BAAQMD’s significance criteria of 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—and the proposed project would not be considered to generate a CO hotspot.
Overall, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the EIR Study Area and vicinity. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.
Operational Community Risk and Hazards
Common sources of TAC emissions are stationary sources (e.g., dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, and gasoline stations), which are subject to the BAAQMD permit requirements. Future development and activities under the proposed project could result in new sources of TACs and PM2.5. Stationary sources, including smaller stationary sources associated with residential development (e.g., emergency generators and boilers), are subject to review by BAAQMD as part of the permitting process. Adherence to the BAAQMD permitting regulations would ensure that new stationary sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Mobile sources of air toxics (e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD. However, residential development associated with the proposed project would not generate substantial truck traffic or idling. Permitted stationary sources and nonpermitted sources are discussed in greater detail below.
Stationary (Permitted) Sources
Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the proposed project would be expected to release TACs. TAC emissions generated by stationary and point sources of emissions within the SFBAAB are regulated and controlled by BAAQMD. Land uses that would require a permit from BAAQMD for emissions of TACs include chemical processing facilities, chromeplating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. Emissions of TACs from stationary sources would be controlled by BAAQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under Regulation 2, New Source Review, as well as Regulation 11, Rule 18, Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities. Additionally, Review under New Source Review ensures that stationary source emissions (permitted sources) would be reduced or mitigated below the BAAQMD community risk and hazards thresholds. Though these sources would incrementally contribute to emissions in the EIR Study Area individually, they would be mitigated to the BAAQMD standards.
The Land Use (LU) Element and the Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to air quality, including sensitive receptors. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on air quality and to sensitive receptors by increasing standards:
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-62 JANUARY 2025
Goal LU-9: Protect and enhance all residential neighborhoods. 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 and compatibility conflicts.
Goal EM-6: Support atmospheric conditions that are clean, healthful, provides maximum visibility and meets air quality standards.
Policy EM-6.5: Consider potential impacts from land uses that may emit pollution and/or odors when locating air pollution sources near sensitive receptors. Air pollution sources could include freeways, industrial uses, hazardous materials storage, waste disposal/transfer stations and other similar uses.
Though the listed General Plan goals and policies would help reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to pollution, and BAAQMD would ensure that on a project-by-project basis emission achieve their permit thresholds, emissions cannot be determined or modeled until specific development projects are proposed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project may result in projects that emit TACs and PM2.5 throughout the EIR Study Area and result in potentially significant localized air quality impacts.
Nonpermitted Sources
TACs and PM2.5 from mobile sources when operating at a property (e.g., truck idling) are regulated by statewide rules and regulations, not by BAAQMD, and have the potential to generate substantial concentrations of air pollutants. The primary mobile source of TACs within the EIR Study Area includes truck idling and use of off-road equipment.
While the land use pattern envisioned by the proposed project does not involve a substantial increase in industrial or trucking facilities, new warehousing operations present the potential to generate substantial DPM and PM2.5 emissions from off-road cargo-handling equipment use and truck idling. In addition, some warehousing and industrial facilities may include use of transport refrigeration units (TRUs) for cold storage. New land uses in the EIR Study Area that would be permitted under the proposed project that use trucks and TRUs could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and noncancer health risk in the SFBAAB. Additionally, these types of facilities could also generate particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) that may cause an exceedance or contribute to the continuing exceedance of the federal and State AAQS. These new land uses could be near existing sensitive receptors. In addition, trucks would travel on regional transportation routes through the Bay Area, contributing to near-roadway DPM concentrations.
Buildout projections for the proposed project include an increase in research and development and industrial square footage, which includes life sciences and general light industrial uses. The majority of the areas intended for these uses would be concentrated in the eastern portion of the city. Additionally, existing residences are close to Industrial land use designations (see Figure 3-3, General Plan Land Use Designations). However, until specific future development projects are proposed, the associated emissions and concentrations cannot be determined or modeled. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-63
The Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to air quality, including operational health risks. The following General Plan goals, policies, and action would serve to reduce potential health risks and protect sensitive receptors from poor air quality in the EIR Study Area:
Goal EM-6: Support atmospheric conditions that are clean, healthful, provides maximum visibility and meets air quality standards.
Policy EM-6.4: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines that establish minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. Exceptions may be made for projects that do not meet the distance requirements, but can be determined compatible with adjacent uses through a project-specific study that determines potential health risk. Mitigation measures shall be required to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.
Goal EM-11: Promote and expand public and alternative modes of transportation Policy EM-11.11: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance that contains strategies to reduce vehicle trips. Action EM-11.5: Encourage transit providers to utilize vehicles with low polluting technologies and to reduce or eliminate idling.
The policies listed above would require BAAQMD guidelines for minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. Additionally, these policies aim to limit truck idling within the EIR Study Area and overall support the BAAQMD rules to reduce emissions from mobile sources.
Though the proposed project includes policies to reduce air pollutant emissions exposure within Overburdened Communities, the proposed project could result in specific development projects that could emit TACs and PM2.5. The emissions associated with these facilities cannot be determined or modeled until specific development projects are proposed. Thus, implementation of the proposed project may result in projects that emit TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of Overburdened Communities and result in potentially significant localized air quality impacts. Without project-specific analysis health risk impacts from nonpermitted sources associated with development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered to be significant.
Impact AQ-3: Construction emissions associated with future development projects could expose air quality-sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) project-level and cumulative significance thresholds.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or Overburdened Community, as measured from the property line of the project site to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-64 JANUARY 2025
(HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by BAAQMD (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence), the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions Electrifying warehousing docks
Requiring use of newer equipment
Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review.
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Future development could result in new sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) or particulate matter (PM2.5) near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by BAAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gas stations) in addition to proposed project goals, policies, and actions would ensure that health risks are minimized. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by BAAQMD, and TAC and PM2.5 project-level impacts would be less than significant. However, these projects could contribute to significant cumulative risk in the Bay Area that could affect sensitive populations and Overburdened Communities. As a result, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative health risk is considered significant and unavoidable.
AQ-4 The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Construction
While odors could be generated during future construction activities associated with future development and activities, the proposed project would not directly result in construction of any development project. Identification of potential impacts to odor receptors resulting from constructiongenerated odors, such as equipment exhaust, would require project-specific information for future individual land use development projects that is not currently known. Nonetheless, odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance. Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 1 would ensure that odor impacts associated with the proposed project are minimized. As previously discussed, consistent with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a plan-level analysis must 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-65
acknowledge odor sources within the EIR Study Area and identify policies, goals, and objectives aimed at reducing potential odor impacts to ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Operation
According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations such as chemical and other manufacturing. While odors do not themselves present a health risk, they are often considered a nuisance by people who live, work, or otherwise are located near outdoor odor sources.
Future environmental review could be required for future industrial projects listed in BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines Table 5-4, Odor Screening Distances, to ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to nuisance odors. Consequently, review of projects using BAAQMD’s odor screening distances is necessary to ensure that odor impacts are minimized. An increase in residential uses would not generate substantial odors that would affect a substantial number of people. During operation, residences could generate odors from cooking. However, odors from cooking are not substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that would affect a substantial number of people.
The Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to air quality, including odors. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to minimize impacts related to potential adverse impacts related to odors:
Goal EM-6: Support atmospheric conditions that are clean, healthful, provides maximum visibility and meets air quality standards.
Policy EM-6.5: Consider potential impacts from land uses that may emit pollution and/or odors when locating air pollution sources near sensitive receptors. Air pollution sources could include freeways, industrial uses, hazardous materials storage, waste disposal/transfer stations and other similar uses.
Compliance with proposed project policies, as well applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, would prevent odor emissions from adversely affecting a substantial number of people in the EIR Study Area.
Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint, and BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1- 301, Public Nuisance. Compliance with these BAAQMD regulations would ensure that odor impacts associated with the proposed project are minimized. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AIR QUALITY
4.2-66 JANUARY 2025
AQ-5 The proposed project would, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative air quality impacts in the area.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The cumulative area of analysis is the SFBAAB. As identified in Section 4.2.1, Environmental Setting, California is divided into air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the state on a regional basis based on meteorological and geographic conditions. Similar to GHG emissions impacts, air quality impacts are regional in nature as no single project generates enough emissions that would cause an air basin to be designated as a nonattainment area. Criteria air pollutant emissions generated by cumulative development associated with buildout of the proposed project would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds during construction and operation and would contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB.
The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Therefore, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects elsewhere within the SFBAAB, the proposed project, even with implementation of applicable regulations and identified mitigation measures, would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. These impacts are significant and unavoidable and are identified and discussed in impact discussions AQ-2 and AQ-3.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Buildout of the proposed project would generate new sources of TAC near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by BAAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered by BAAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of San Carlos.
Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by BAAQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the SFBAAB. While individual projects would achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of cancer risk in the SFBAAB, and therefore result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, the cumulative contribution to health risk resulting from implementation of the proposed project is significant and unavoidable. These impacts are significant and unavoidable and are identified and discussed in impact discussions AQ-2 and AQ-3. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to biological resources, and the potential impacts of the project from adopting and implementing the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, and from future development and activities that would occur within the buildout horizon of the proposed project. A summary of the relevant regulatory framework and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of potential impacts and cumulative impacts related to implementation of the proposed project.
4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the FESA. FESA defines “take” as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Section 17.3, Definitions, of the Code of Federal Regulations, defines the term “harass” as an intentional or negligent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Furthermore, Section 17.3 defines “harm” as an act that either kills or injures a listed species.
By definition, “harm” includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering.
Section 10(a) of the FESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes nonfederal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by FESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.” Preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the FESA for administering the incidental take program.
NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.
Section 7 of the FESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the FESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance of permits or funding. Section 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-2 JANUARY 2025
7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat (FESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.
Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, Section 9 of the FESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. These waters, and their lateral limit, include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands.1 The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the ordinary high-water mark2 or the limit of adjacent wetlands.3 Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the United States, whether natural or human-made, results in a similar extension of USACE jurisdiction.
Waters of the United States fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses generally lacking plant cover, such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands are aquatic habitats that support hydrophytic wetland plants and include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the United States.
Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable water of the United States are not tributary to waters of the United States. These are termed “isolated wetlands.” Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce.4 The USACE may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on the specific circumstances.
In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the United States. Prior to issuing the permit, the USACE is required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA if the project may affect federally listed species.
1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a). 2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(e). 3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(b). 4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a). 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-3
All USACE permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this regulatory program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the United States must apply for water quality certification from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other jurisdictional area.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act.
State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over State-listed endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).5 CESA is similar to the FESA both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the provisions of both State and federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to the State list. Candidate species are protected by the provisions of CESA.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a “de facto” rare or endangered species.
California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW is responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), which contains several protections from “take” for a variety of species. The CDFW also protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1601 to 1606 of the CFGC. The CFGC stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or 5 California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-4 JANUARY 2025
substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover.
The CFGC also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or possessed at any time. The CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research, habitat restoration/species recovery actions, or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully protected species are listed in CFGC Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code, while protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42, respectively.
Several provisions in the CFGC provide for the protection of birds and bird nests in active use. Unless the CFGC or its implementing regulations provide otherwise, under California law it is unlawful to:
Take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian.
Take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Take, possess, or destroy any bird of prey in the orders Strigiformes (owls) and Falconiformes (such as falcons, hawks and eagles) or the nests or eggs of such bird. Take or possess any of the thirteen fully protected bird species listed in CFGC Section 3511. Take any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).
Take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such bird, except as provided by rules or regulations adopted by the DOI under the MBTA. Take, import, export, possess, purchase, or sell any bird (or products of a bird), listed as an endangered or threatened species under the CESA unless the person or entity possesses an Incidental Take Permit or equivalent authorization from CDFW.
Non-native species, including European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and rock pigeon (Columba livia), are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or CFGC.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,6 the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State’s waters. The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands, as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the USACE. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it still requires review and approval by the RWQCB. When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements into projects that will 6 California Water Code Sections 13000 through 14920.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-5
require discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California, “take” of rare and endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. The CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act, which ensures that State-listed plant species are protected when State agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act are not protected under the CESA but rather under CEQA.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-governmental conservation organization that has developed a list of plants of special concern in California. The following explains the designations for each plant species:7
Rank 1A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere Rank 1B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Rank 2A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere Rank 2B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere Rank 3. Plants About Which More Information is Needed; A Review List Rank 4. Plants of Limited Distribution; A Watch List
California Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are natural community types considered to be rare or of a “high inventory priority” by the CDFW. Although sensitive natural communities have no legal protective status under FESA or CESA, they are provided some level of consideration under CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six criteria to consider in determining the significance of a proposed project. While no thresholds are established as part of this criterion, it serves as an acknowledgement that sensitive natural communities are an important resource and, depending on their rarity, should be recognized as part of the environmental review process. The level of significance of a project’s impact on any particular sensitive natural community will depend on that natural community’s relative abundance and rarity.
As an example, a discretionary project that has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, and/or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type. 7 California Native Plant Society, CNPS Inventory of Rare Plants, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rareplants#:~:text=List%201%2D%20Plants%20Presumed%20Extinct,is%20currently%20considered%20CRPR%204., accessed October 17, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-6 JANUARY 2025
Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act8 of 2001 acknowledges the importance of private land stewardship to the conservation of the state’s valued oak woodlands. This act established the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, which aims to conserve oak woodlands existing in the state’s working landscapes by providing education and incentives to private landowners. The program provides technical and financial incentives to private landowners to protect and promote biologically functional oak woodlands.
Regional Regulations
McAteer-Petris Act
In 1969, the McAteer-Petris Act designated the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as the agency responsible for the protection of the San Francisco Bay and its natural resources. BCDC fulfills this mission through the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan), an enforceable plan that guides the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline.9 The Bay Plan includes a range of policies on public access, water quality, project design, and dredging and fill. The Bay Plan also designates shoreline areas that should be reserved for water-related sports, industry, and public recreation; airports; and wildlife areas. The City of San Carlos is within BCDC’s jurisdiction. Impacts related to aesthetics, water quality, and recreation are discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Chapter 4.12, Parks and Recreation, of this Draft EIR, respectively.
San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (the Basin Plan) that designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters addressed through the Basin Plan, which includes wetlands in and near the EIR Study Area. It is the RWQCB’s master water quality control planning document. The most recent amendments were incorporated into the Basin Plan as of May 2017.10
Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area Adopted in 1998, the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area covers 28 special status species of plants and animals that occur mainly on serpentine soils and grasslands in the 8 California Fish and Game Code Section 1360 et seq.
9 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2020, San Francisco Bay Plan, https://bcdc.ca.gov/resources/plans/san-francisco-bay-plan/, accessed September 24, 2024. 10 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2017, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/basinplan/web/docs/BP_ all_chapters.pdf, accessed August 8, 2022.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-7
San Francisco Bay Area.11 Due to much of the San Francisco Bay being converted into urban and industrial uses, many species have been forced to move from their historic ranges. The goal of this recovery plan is to delist certain endangered and threatened species, improve the security of several listed species, and ensure long-term conservation of certain species of concern.
Local Regulations
San Carlos General Plan
As part of the proposed project, some existing General Plan goals, policies, and actions would be amended or new policies would be added. Applicable goals, policies, and actions are identified and assessed for their effectiveness and potential to result in an adverse physical impact later in this chapter under Section 4.3.3, Impact Discussion.
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
The San Carlos Municipal Code (SCMC) is the primary document that regulates the policies and practices of the City. The SCMC contains the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Building and Construction Code, and other titles that are important in implementing the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to biological resources as follows:
Chapter 18.14, Stream Development and Maintenance (SDM) Overlay District, regulates developments within 25 feet of top of bank of Cordilleras, Belmont, Brittan, and Pulgas Creeks within the City. All new development shall be set back a minimum twenty-five feet from the top of bank line or such other distance as specified by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Vegetation shall not be cut or removed except for normal maintenance, to facilitate drainage, prevent flooding, and to permit adequate flow of water. Such cutting or 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.
Section 18.18.070, Trees, outlines regulations that serve to promote the preservation and development of a healthy, diverse tree canopy in San Carlos. The section defines protected trees, which means any significant or heritage tree, any tree as part of a replacement requirement, an approved development permit or an approved landscaping plan. The provision of trees per square feet of lot coverage varies by district but is required to be a minimum of 24 inches box size unless otherwise specified by the City Arborist and include species restrictions. The section also regulates the maintenance and preservation and prohibits the removal and/or pruning of protected trees.
East Side Innovation District Vision Plan
Approved in 2021, the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan sets forth clear goals and principles written to achieve the desired character for this area of the City. The East Side Innovation District applies 11 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1998, Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/management/upload/-1491-Recovery-Plan-for-serpentine-soil-species-of-the-SanFrancis.pdf, accessed August 9, 2022. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-8 JANUARY 2025
to the area east of El Camino Real and west of US Highway 101 and is bounded by Brittan Avenue to the south and Holly Street to the north. Principles of the Vision Plan related to biological resources include encouraging landscaping strategies that provide habitat area and increase the East Side Innovation District’s overall tree canopy; conducting further technical analysis to understand the geotechnical, biological, and hydraulic conditions of the creek and where opportunities exist to increase the setback and landscaping provisions; and prioritizing creek restoration as part of future citywide strategic plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Vegetation and Habitat Types
Although native vegetation within San Carlos has been substantially altered, the presence of large areas of undeveloped lands to the west, and the remaining riparian corridors along creeks, contributes to a diverse assemblage of resident and migrant wildlife species. In general, each habitat differs in its relative value to specific species and can be characterized by both vegetation and dependent animal species, although some wildlife species may utilize more than one habitat type.
Existing vegetation and habitat types in the EIR Study area and vicinity are depicted in Figure 4.3-1, Vegetation and Habitat Types. The habitat types found within and around San Carlos all provide different ecological functions and value. The more common habitat types are outlined below:
Non-vegetated and sparsely vegetated habitat. Most of the non-vegetated and sparsely vegetated habitat areas are located east of Alameda de las Pulgas. Aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitat includes streams, ponds, lakes and bay shoreline that provide habitat to a variety of birds, amphibians, fish and mammals. Wetlands. Wetlands are areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands provide habitat for fish and wildlife and provide stormwater, flood, and water recharge, filtration and purification functions.
Seasonal wetlands are areas of prolonged saturation that are dry during the summer months.
Wetlands tend to be present near aquatic features such as creeks, lakes or ponds and along the bay shore, but also may be found within seasonal swales or isolated depressions such as a low spot in the ground. Although there are only documented areas of wetlands near the eastern city border, it is likely that these features exist in other areas of the EIR Study Area. Riparian habitats. Riparian habitat is a distinct plant community found along the margins of creeks and rivers. It has a very high value to wildlife and generally exhibits a rich and diverse animal community. Although mostly urbanized, Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont, and Cordilleras Creeks support areas of riparian habitat.
Oak woodland. Oak woodland habitat consists of patches of several or more mature trees frequently dominated by California coast live oak and valley oak. Some areas of oak woodland habitat also support a dense understory shrub layer of vegetation that includes coyote brush, poison oak, California coffeeberry, Himalayan blackberry and California rose. This habitat is found in small patches in single-family neighborhoods and concentrated in open space and park areas.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-10 JANUARY 2025
Annual grassland. The majority of grassland habitat in San Carlos is rather low-quality grassland dominated by annual, non-native upland grasses and forbs. Scrub. Scrub habitat in the San Carlos area is characterized by Chamise-Redshank Chapparal. Scrub is found in some of the upland open space and park areas.
Special-status Species
San Carlos’ hilly, densely vegetated open space areas and proximity to the San Francisco Bay provide potential habitat for a variety of sensitive plant or wildlife species. The CNDDB lists known occurrences of sensitive species based on reported and verified sighting locations of these species. It is not a comprehensive or exhaustive list and sensitive species may exist that are not shown in the database.
Locations of CNDDB plant and animal occurrences in the EIR Study Area and vicinity are depicted in Figure 4.3-2, Special-Status Animals and Critical Habitat, and Figure 4.3-3, Special-Status Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities, respectively. CNDDB plant and animal occurrences within the EIR Study Area are summarized in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2, respectively.
TABLE 4.3-1 CNDDB PLANT OCCURRENCES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Federal List California List CNPS Rank Acanthomintha
duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Allium peninsulare
var. franciscanum Franciscan onion None None 1B.2
Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered
fiddleneck None None 1B.2
Arctostaphylos
regismontana
Kings Mountain
manzanita None None 1B.2
Astragalus
pycnostachyus var.
pycnostachyus
coastal marsh milkvetch None None 1B.2
Calamagrostis
ophitidis
Serpentine
Bunchgrass None None None
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes salty
bird's-beak None None 1B.2
Cirsium fontinale var.
fontinale fountain thistle Endangered Endangered 1B.1
Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia None None 1B.2 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood None None 1B.2
Fritillaria biflora var.
ineziana
Hillsborough
chocolate lily None None 1B.1
Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None 1B.2 Hesperolinon
congestum
Marin western flax Threatened Threatened 1B.1
Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs
lessingia None None 1B.2
Malacothamnus
arcuatus var. arcuatus
arcuate bushmallow None None 1B.2
Monolopia gracilens woodland
woollythreads None None 1B.2
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-11
TABLE 4.3-1 CNDDB PLANT OCCURRENCES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Federal List California List CNPS Rank Pentachaeta
bellidiflora
white-rayed
pentachaeta Endangered Endangered 1B.1
Plagiobothrys
chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower None None 1B.2
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort None None 2B.2
Silene verecunda ssp.
verecunda
San Francisco
campion None None 1B.2
Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None 1B.2
Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl'sclover None None 1B.2 Notes:
CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS = California Native Plant Society
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank:
- 1B.1: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California. - 1B.2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California. - 2B.2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; fairly threatened in California.
Source: California Natural Diversity Database, 2024; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2024 (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, of this Draft EIR).
TABLE 4.3-2 CNDDB ANIMAL OCCURRENCES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Federal List California List CDFW Rank Acipenser medirostris
pop. 1
green sturgeon -
southern DPS Threatened None SSC
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None SSC
Ardea herodias great blue heron None None None
Asio flammeus short-eared owl None None SSC
Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None Candidate
Endangered None
Calicina minor Edgewood blind
harvestman None None None
Charadrius nivosus
nivosus western snowy plover Threatened None SSC
Circus hudsonius northern harrier None None SSC
Coturnicops
noveboracensis yellow rail None None SSC
Dipodomys venustus
venustus
Santa Cruz kangaroo
rat
None None None
Emys marmorata western pond turtle Proposed Threatened None SSC Euphydryas editha
bayensis
Bay checkerspot
butterfly Threatened None None
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American peregrine
falcon Delisted Delisted Delisted
Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa
saltmarsh common
yellowthroat None None SSC
Ricksecker's water
scavenger beetle
Hydrochara
rickseckeri None None None
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None None
Laterallus jamaicensis California black rail None Threatened FP 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-12 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.3-2 CNDDB ANIMAL OCCURRENCES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Federal List California List CDFW Rank coturniculus
Melospiza melodia
pusillula
Alameda song
sparrow
None None SSC
Microcina
edgewoodensis
Edgewood Park
micro-blind
harvestman
None None None
Nannopterum
auritum
double-crested
cormorant
None None WL
Neotoma fuscipes
annectens
San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat None None SSC
Rana boylii pop. 4
foothill yellow-legged
frog - central coast
DPS
Threatened Endangered
Rana draytonii California red-legged
frog Threatened None SSC
Reithrodontomys
raviventris
salt-marsh harvest
mouse Endangered Endangered FP
Sorex vagrans
halicoetes
salt-marsh wandering
shrew None None SSC
Sternula antillarum
browni California least tern Endangered Endangered FP
Thamnophis sirtalis
tetrataenia
San Francisco
gartersnake Endangered Endangered FP
Notes:
CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
- SSC: Special Species of Concern
- FP: Fully Protected
Source: California Natural Diversity Database, 2024; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2024 (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, of this Draft EIR).
Known occurrences of sensitive species are documented nearby that are not in the CNDDB. Specifically, the dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectans) is known to be located on, or in the immediate vicinity of an area at the western end of Devonshire Boulevard, and the highest concentrations of nests occur in riparian, coast live oak woodland, and chaparral dominated by chamise and toyon.
In addition, there are additional sensitive plant species identified by the CDFW and USFWS as having the potential to occur in the area. Although there are no documented sitings of these species, the valley and foothill grasslands and seasonal wetland habitat types found in the area could support their existence.
These sensitive species include the following:12
Alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener)
San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana)
Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens)
Large flowered linanthus (Linanthus grandiflorus)
Greene’s popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys greenei)
12 City of San Carlos, Winding Way Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Annexation to the City of San Carlos Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 2005, page 3-19.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-13
Salinas Valley popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys uncinatus) In addition, coastal salt marsh and wetland habitat near the San Carlos Airport, but outside the EIR Study Area, are known to support sensitive species. Water birds such as the endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and the threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) could potentially be present in areas adjacent to the San Carlos Airport. There is also potential for the federal endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) to occur in these areas, particularly in places with cordgrass or alkali brush.
The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and dusky footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes annectans) all have potential to occur in open space areas in and around San Carlos. The San Francisco garter snake, a federal Endangered species, typically resides in densely vegetated ponds near exposed hillsides where it can sun itself, feed and find cover in rodent burrows. Often the prey of the San Francisco garter snake, the California red-legged frog, a federal Threatened species, occurs in areas of riparian vegetation with deep, still or slow-moving water. The California tiger salamander, also a federal Endangered species, is found in vernal pools and seasonal ponds in grassland and low foothills. The dusty footed wood rat, a California species of concern, typically is found in woodland areas with dense underbrush. Additionally, native shrubs like the acurate bush mallow could potentially occur in open space areas west of Alameda de las Pulgas.
Critical Habitat
There are no USFWS-designated critical habitats within the EIR Study Area. However, as shown in Figure
4.3-2, critical habitat for the California red-legged frog lies west of the SOI and critical habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly lies south of the SOI. There is a NOAA-designated critical habitat for the green sturgeon east of the EIR Study Area.
13 San Carlos is within NOAA-designated boundaries of Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook salmon and Coho salmon.14 The NOAA has also designed Essential Fish Habitat for groundfish and coastal pelagic species east of the EIR Study Area.
Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are community types recognized by CDFW and other agencies because of their rarity. As shown on Figure 4.3-3, the CNDDB reported known occurrences of serpentine bunchgrass and northern coastal salt marsh in the surrounding area of San Carlos. 13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, October 2023, National NMFS ESA Critical Habitat Mapper, https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=68d8df16b39c48fe9f60640692d0e318, accessed October 17, 2024.
14 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, July 2021, Essential Fish Habitat Mapper, https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/, accessed October 17, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-16 JANUARY 2025
Jurisdictional Waters
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration, and purification functions. The CDFW, USACE, and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to riverbanks, lakes, stream channels and other wetland features, as discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, Regulatory Framework.
Pulgas and Brittan Creeks are the two main creeks within San Carlos. The creeks have mostly unhardened channels in the upper reaches and hardened channels in the lower flatlands, where Brittan Creek joins Pulgas Creek via an underground conduit (paralleling El Camino Real). Following the confluence of Pulgas Creek and Brittan Creeks, the combined flow drains into Smith Slough south of Bair Island. Belmont Creek is located at the northern San Carlos boundary in the east side area. Belmont Creek flows into Belmont Slough and O’Neill Slough. Cordilleras Creek, the longest of the four creeks, defines the southern boundary of San Carlos which is shared with Redwood City. Cordilleras Creek, like the combined Pulgas/Brittan Creek, also flows into San Francisco Bay via Smith Slough. Similar to Pulgas and Brittan Creeks, the upper reaches of Cordilleras Creek are mostly unhardened channels. These creeks 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.
As shown in Figure 4.3-4, Wetlands, according to the National Wetlands Inventory, the four creeks in the EIR Study Area have been designated as riverine and freshwater forested/shrub wetland. While the National Wetlands Inventory does identify a freshwater pond designation between El Camino Real and Old County Road, north of Holly Street, this area is developed with housing and does not provide any freshwater pond environment. The waterbodies east of the EIR Study Area have also been designated varying types of wetlands, including estuarine and marine deepwater, estuarine and marine wetland, freshwater wetland, and freshwater pond, and lake.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by impassible barriers, large bodies of water, distinct changes in cover, and intensive human activity, among other factors. Urbanization and the resulting fragmentation of undeveloped open space areas can create isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat, separating populations that can lead to genetic isolation and sometimes extirpation. Corridors act as an effective link between populations, allowing for genetic exchange and recruitment of dispersing individual animals where the local carrying capacity, competition and other influences allow.
Wildlife movement thought the EIR Study Area is limited due to urbanization of San Carlos. While the EIR Study Area is highly developed, some non-contiguous, vegetated sections along creeks and other areas of open space may provide enough cover to function as a migratory corridor for some species.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-18 JANUARY 2025
Habitat Conservation Plans
The EIR Study is not located within the planning area of an adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan and none are located in the surrounding area of San Carlos.
4.3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant biological resources impact if it would:
BIO-1 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 CDFW or USFWS.
BIO-2 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 CDFW or USFWS.
BIO-3 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.
BIO-4 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.
BIO-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
BIO-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
BIO-7 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative biological resource impacts in the area.
4.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
BIO-1 The proposed project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS.
Local, regional, State, and federal regulations provide varying levels of protection for special-status species, depending on a number of factors, including legal protective status, rarity and distribution, the magnitude of the potential impact on essential habitat, specific occurrence and overall population levels, and take of individual plants or animals. Future development projects that could occur under the proposed project would be evaluated for their potential impact on special-status species and other sensitive biological resources, and activities requiring discretionary approvals by local, regional, State, and federal agencies would be subject to regulatory oversight. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-19
As indicated in Table 4.3-1, CNDDB Plant Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, seven special-status plant species are reported to occur within or in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. These consist of Franciscan onion, San Francisco collinsia, western leatherwood, Hillsborough chocolate lily, arcuate bush-mallow, woodland woollythreads, and chaparral ragwort. As indicated in Table 4.3-2, CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, seven special-status animal species are reported to occur within or in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. These consist of pallid bat, western snowy plower, Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, American peregrine falcon, Alameda song sparrow, Edgewood Park micro-blind harvestman, and San Francisco gartersnake. As shown in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2, these species have varied legal status or are considered Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW. A few have no special status but are monitored by the CDFW because of recent declines and abundance.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the majority of new housing in San Carlos is expected on infill parcels near Downtown, along the El Camino Real corridor, along Old County Road between Holly Street and Terminal Avenue, and along East San Carlos Avenue. Most of the commercial growth is expected to occur in the Downtown area and most of the office growth is expected in the Downtown and Northeast areas. Research and development and industrial growth would be limited to the east side area of San Carlos. The potential for occurrence of special-status species in these developed areas is generally very remote in comparison to undeveloped lands with natural habitat that contain essential habitat characteristics for the range of species known in the EIR Study Area vicinity.
While the potential for adverse impacts on special-status species is relatively low, there remains a varying potential for loss or disruption due to conversion of areas of natural habitat, removal of trees and other vegetation, increases in light and noise, and other modifications and disturbance.
Development in locations abutting or in the vicinity of open space lands or water resources, where special-status species are more likely to occur, could potentially cause a significant impact to, or cause the inadvertent loss, of bird nests in active use, conflicting with both the MBTA and CFGC.
The Land Use (LU) Element, Environmental Management (EM) Element, and Parks and Recreation (PR) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including special-status species. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to special-status species:
Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
Policy LU-1.9: To the extent possible, retain the channels, floodplains, riparian corridors (including suitable setbacks from top of bank) and closely associated upland areas of Cordilleras, Brittan and Pulgas Creeks and their tributaries as significant open space areas. These areas should be maintained in their natural state to function as appropriate open space areas, greenbelt and to support a riparian habitat.
Policy LU-1.11: Preserve existing open space by supporting urban infill. 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. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-20 JANUARY 2025
Policy EM-1.2: Ensure that development is consistent with all federal, State and regional regulations for habitat and species protection.
Policy EM-1.5: Promote the preservation of native species, habitat and vegetation types and overall natural diversity.
Action EM-1.1: Continue to cooperate with local, regional and State agencies involved in protecting critical habitat.
Action EM-1.4: Enforce rules and regulations in public open space areas to minimize the impacts of destructive activities.
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-2.7: 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. Action EM-2.1: Consider amending the Riparian Ordinance to strengthen stream protection requirements and reduce potential for flooding. Potential amendments may include evaluation of increased setbacks, limited walls and fences, requiring Best Management Practices (BMPs) for biotechnical bank stabilization and erosion control and vegetation management requirements. Action EM-2.3: Provide information to the public on City regulations and best practices for riparian corridor management.
Action EM-2.6: Consider preparation of Watershed Management Plans for all watersheds, addressing flooding causes, improvement of creek functionality and water quality and creek channel restoration
Goal PR-4: Provide for environmentally-sustainable parks and recreational programs. Policy PR-4.1: Preserve and protect sensitive species and habitats in City parks and open space, as identified by the Environmental Management Element of this Plan or state and federal guidelines.
Compliance with these General Plan goals, policies, and actions would help protect special-status species, and minimize impacts on any species identified as an endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, or special-status species and their habitat; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-21
BIO-2 The proposed project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS.
Impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities may occur from both direct and indirect sources from implementation of the proposed project. Direct impacts occur as a result of converting natural habitat to development, including construction of new structures, creating impervious surfaces for roadways and parking, and culverting of natural drainages. Direct impacts may also be temporary in nature if they disturb a habitat that is subsequently restored after construction.
An indirect impact is a physical change in the environment, which is not immediately related to, but could be caused by, future development and activities under the proposed project. For example, if future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project results in a collective reduction in habitat, the values and functions of that remaining habitat would be reduced. Changes in hydrology and water quality, through increases in sedimentation as a result of grading and the introduction of urban pollutants, could also have indirect impacts on aquatic habitat and contribute to a reduction in the value of downgradient waters.
As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, Existing Conditions, sensitive natural communities in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area include serpentine bunchgrass in the southern corner of the SOI and northern coastal salt marsh, northeast of the EIR Study Area. These marshlands are identified as wetlands under the National Wetlands Inventory, which is discussed further under impact discussion BIO-3.
Due to the built-out nature of the EIR Study Area, future development would occur in previously urbanized areas; nevertheless, there is a possibility that development could be proposed in locations that may contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Additionally, future development that occurs adjacent to open space areas or along drainages and shoreline areas could have a significant impact on sensitive natural communities if present on a particular site. Further detailed site investigation is typically necessary for individual development projects to determine whether any sensitive natural communities are present on sites with natural habitat.
Future development would be required to comply with SCMC Section 18.144.040, which requires a 25- foot setback from the top of bank on each side of the creek to protect waterways. Furthermore, as discussed in impact discussion BIO-1, the Land Use (LU) Element, Environmental Management (EM) Element, and Parks and Recreation (PR) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion BIO-1 would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
Compliance with SCMC regulations, as well as the General Plan goals, policies, and actions identified would protect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-22 JANUARY 2025
BIO-3 The proposed 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
Future development and land use activities within the buildout horizon of the proposed project could result in direct loss or modification to existing wetlands and unvegetated other waters, as well as indirect impacts due to water quality degradation. Affected wetlands could include both the wetland-related sensitive natural community described under impact discussion BIO-2, as well as areas of open water, degraded and modified streams and channels, unvegetated waters, and isolated seasonal wetlands or freshwater seeps. Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance, an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants.
Water quality degradation may occur even when wetlands and unvegetated channels are avoided by proposed development if setbacks are inadequate to provide critical vegetation filtration functions.
However, future development would be required to comply with SCMC Section 18.144.040, which requires a 25-foot setback from the top of bank on each side of the creek to protect waterways. Indirect water quality-related issues are discussed further in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, and, as discussed in impact discussion HYD-1, water quality impacts were determined to be less than significant. Refer to Chapter 4.9 of this Draft EIR for a list of General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would preserve water quality of all water resources in the EIR Study Area, including wetlands.
Additionally, as discussed in impact discussion BIO-1, the Land Use (LU) Element, Environmental Management (EM) Element, and Parks and Recreation (PR) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including wetlands. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion BIO-1 would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to state or federally protected wetlands.
Compliance with SCMC regulations, as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would ensure that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on wetlands.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-4 The proposed 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.
Development and land use activities within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would generally be in urbanized areas with few wildlife corridors or locations and where wildlife is already acclimated to 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-23
human activity. However, the EIR Study Area does contain some habitat areas that could be adversely affected by new development, particularly along creeks and other drainages, or adjacent to open space and undeveloped lands.
Future development could also result in the potential for bird collisions as a result of new buildings and other structures. Avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with buildings, towers, and other human-made structures is a common occurrence in urban and suburban settings. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass and have difficulty distinguishing between actual objects and their reflected images, particularly when the glass is transparent and views through the structure are possible.
Nighttime lighting can interfere with movement patterns of some night-migrating birds, causing disorientation or attracting them to the light source. The frequency of bird collisions in any particular area is dependent on numerous factors, including characteristics of building height, fenestration, and exterior treatments of windows and their relationship to other buildings and vegetation in the area; local and migratory avian populations, their movement patterns, and proximity of water, food and other attractants; time of year; prevailing winds; weather conditions; and other variables. Bird-safe design measures would serve to reduce the potential for bird collisions and can include the following design considerations and best management practice strategies:
Avoid the use of highly reflective glass as an exterior treatment, which appears to reproduce natural habitat and can be attractive to some birds,
Limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting birds in building plans by utilizing lowreflectivity glass and providing other non-attractive surface treatments, Use low-reflectivity glass or other glazing treatments for the entirety of the building’s glass surface, not just the lower levels,
For commercial buildings, interior light “pollution” should be reduced during evening hours through the use of a lighting control system,
Exterior lighting should be directed downward and screened to minimize illuminating the exterior of the building at night, except as needed for safety and security, Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners should not be allowed,
Transparent glass should not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs, and
All roof mechanical equipment should be covered by low-profile angled roofing so that obstacles to bird flight are minimized.
New buildings would alter existing physical characteristics of the EIR Study Area and could contribute to an increased risk of bird collisions and mortalities. For taller buildings and structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy, this could result in a significant impact unless appropriate bird-safe design measures were incorporated into the building design.
As discussed in impact discussion BIO-1, the Land Use (LU) Element, Environmental Management (EM) Element, and Parks and Recreation (PR) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, including wildlife movement. In addition to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion BIO-1, the following General Plan goal and action would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to the movement of wildlife species or nursery sites:
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-24 JANUARY 2025
Goal EM-1: Protect natural habitat and other biological resources. Action EM-1.5: Require that major new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.
Adherence to the General Plan goal and action listed above would ensure that the proposed project would not interfere with movement of wildlife species or nursery sites; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-5 The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
The City of San Carlos General Plan is the primary planning document for the City of San Carlos. Because the General Plan is the overriding planning document for San Carlos and because the proposed project is intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and federal and State laws and with the updated buildout projections, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. As described in impact discussions BIO-2 and BIO-3, future development would be required to comply with SCMC Chapter 18.14 to protect waterways within the EIR Study Area. Furthermore, SCMC Section 18.18.070 has additional requirements for protected trees in the City related to replacement, maintenance, and preservation.
Additionally, the Land Use (LU) Element, Environmental Management (EM) Element, and Parks and Recreation (PR) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources. As outlined in impact discussion BIO-1, General Plan Policy EM-1.2 would ensure that development is consistent with all federal, State, and regional regulations for habitat and species protection. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to trees:
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. Action EM-3.1: Implement Climate Action Plan measures to require tree planting. Action 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. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-25
Action EM-3.3: Establish and implement a program to protect existing and plant new trees at city facilities, public parks and in public planting strips and parking lots, working with non-profit volunteer groups if possible.
Future development within the EIR Study Area would be required to comply with applicable SCMC regulations and the General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed, which would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources as a result of implementing the proposed project. With adherence to these regulations, no conflicts with local plans and policies are anticipated, and impacts would be considered less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-6 The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The EIR Study Area is not in any local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any such plan. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, listed under impact discussions BIO-1 through BIO-5, along with the stated SCMC regulations, would serve to protect and enhance the sensitive natural communities and specialstatus species within the EIR Study Area. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
BIO-7 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative biological resource impacts in the area.
The impacts of future development on biological resources tend to be site-specific, and the overall cumulative effects would be dependent on the degree to which significant vegetation and wildlife resources are protected on a particular site. This includes preservation of well-developed native vegetation (e.g., native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodland, and chaparral, among others), populations of special-status plant or animal species, and wetland features (e.g., coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh and seeps, riparian corridors, and drainages). Potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat would be carefully evaluated when considering development project applications and development is to be consistent with all federal, State, and regional regulations for habitat and species protection, as required by General Plan Policies EM-1.1 and EM-1.2, respectively. Compliance with these General Plan policies would serve to ensure that important biological resources are identified, protected, and properly managed, and to prevent any significant adverse development-related impacts, including development for the remaining undeveloped lands in the EIR Study Area and surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-26 JANUARY 2025
To some degree, cumulative development contributes to an incremental reduction in the amount of existing natural wildlife habitat, particularly for birds and larger mammals. Habitat for species intolerant of human disturbance can be lost as development encroaches into previously undeveloped areas, disrupting or eliminating movement corridors and fragmenting the remaining suitable habitat retained within parks, public and private open space, and undeveloped properties. New cumulative development in the region could result in further conversion of existing natural habitats to urban and suburban conditions, limiting the existing habitat values of the surrounding area. This could include further loss of wetlands and sensitive natural communities, reduction in essential habitat for special-status species, removal of mature native trees and other important wildlife habitat features, and obstruction of important wildlife movement corridors. Additional development may also contribute to degradation of the aquatic habitat in the creeks throughout the region, including the EIR Study Area. Grading associated with construction activities generally increases erosion and sedimentation, and urban pollutants from new development would reduce water quality.
However, future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project in the EIR Study Area is anticipated to predominantly occur in existing urbanized areas. Future development that could occur elsewhere in the region, outside of the EIR Study Area, is also anticipated to occur largely in urbanized areas, given the generally built-out nature of the region. In the event that future development in the region is proposed in an undeveloped area, the project would likely undergo independent environmental review as required by the jurisdiction in which the project is proposed. Further, the General Plan goals, policies, and actions applicable to the proposed project would serve to address these contributions to cumulative impacts on sensitive biological and wetland resources, as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to biological resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-1
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to cultural resources, and the potential impacts of the project from adopting and implementing the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, and from future development and activities that would occur within the buildout horizon of the proposed project. A summary of the relevant regulatory framework and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of potential impacts and cumulative impacts related to implementation of the proposed project. Potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources are addressed in Chapter 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources.
4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as the official federal designation of historical resources, including districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Resources less than 50 years in age, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for the National Register. Properties that are 50 or more years in age may be eligible for the National Register if one or more criterion for historic significance is met and physical integrity is retained. Though a listing in the National Register does not prohibit demolition or alteration of a property, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the evaluation of a project’s effects and feasible mitigations on properties that are listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the National Register.
According to 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4, the criteria for inclusion on the National Register, which are worded in a manner to provide for a wide diversity of resources, are based on the resources’ quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, as well as the significance of the culture present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The following aspects are used to evaluate the eligibility of potential resources for listing in the National Register:
That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-2 JANUARY 2025
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards) promote responsible practices that help protect the nation's irreplaceable cultural resources. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, and cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which features of the historic building should be saved and which can be changed. But once a treatment is selected, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards provide for philosophical consistency in the work. An individual set of Secretary of the Interior’s Standards has been formulated for each of four identified treatment approaches: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four approaches are defined below:
Preservation requires retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building's historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time. Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character. Restoration allows for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. Reconstruction establishes a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.
The Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation—Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995)—specifically address and encourage alterations or additions to a historic resource to allow new uses while retaining the resource's historic character. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation include the following: 1
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given new use that requires minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in 1 Anne E. Grimmer, revised 2017, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/treatment-guidelines-2017-part1-preservation-rehabilitation.pdf, accessed October 17, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-3
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.