San Carlos City Council
May 27, 2025

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards define minimum education and experience required to perform historic resources identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities. The areas of expertise defined by the Professional Qualifications Standards include History, Archeology, Architectural History, Architecture, and Historic Architecture.2 State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states that projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may also have a significant effect on the environment. The CEQA Guidelines define four ways that a property can qualify as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA compliance:
 The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, as determined by the State Historical Resources Commission.  The resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.  The lead agency determines the resource to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. 2 Code of Federal Regulations, 36, CFR Part 61.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-4 JANUARY 2025
 The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) which means, in part, that it may be eligible for the California Register.

In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 specify lead agency responsibilities in determining whether a project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If it can be demonstrated that a project will damage a unique archaeological resource, reasonable efforts may be required of the lead agency so the resources are preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Preservation in place is the preferred approach to mitigation. The Public Resources Code also details required mitigation if unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place.

Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These provisions protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction by establishing procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to identify the most likely descendant (MLD) and mediate any disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) establishes a list of properties to be protected from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1). The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has determined that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. A historical resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
 It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
 It is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past.  It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value.  It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The California Register includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other resources that may be eligible for the California Register, and which require nomination and approval for listing by the State Historic Resources Commission, include resources contributing to the significance of a local historic district, individual historical resources, historical resources identified in historic surveys conducted in accordance with OHP procedures, historic resources or districts designated under a local ordinance consistent with the procedures of the State Historic Resources Commission, and local landmarks or historic properties designated under local ordinance.

California Historical Building Code
The California Historical Building Code (as set forth in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 13, Part 2.7 of Health and Safety Code and as subject to the rules and regulations set forth in 24 CCR Part 8), provides 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-5
alternative building regulations and standards for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration (including related reconstruction), or relocation of historical buildings, structures, and properties deemed by any level of government as having importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097
Archaeological resources are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In addition, cultural resources are recognized as a nonrenewable resource and therefore receive protection under the California PRC and CEQA.

PRC Sections 5097.9 through 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites and identifies the powers and duties of the NAHC. It also requires notification to descendants of discoveries of Native American human remains and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.

California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that, in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, they shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC.

State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains
Any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities are required to be treated in accordance with California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), PRC Section 5097.98, and the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Specifically, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the county coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. An NAHC representative will then identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-6 JANUARY 2025
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 4.4.3, Impact Discussion.

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 cultural resources as follows:
 Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, adopts the 2022 California Historical Building Code as the rules, regulations, and standards within the city as to all matters except as modified or amended in the SCMC.
 Chapter 18.40, Use Classifications, defines cultural institutions as a public or nonprofit institutions engaged primarily in the display or preservation of objects of interest in the arts or sciences that are open to the public on a regular basis. This classification includes performing arts centers for theater, music, dance, and events; buildings of an educational, charitable or philanthropic nature; libraries; museums; historical sites; aquariums; art galleries; and zoos and botanical gardens.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Historical Resources
Because the San Francisco Peninsula reflects a number of historical periods, events, and persons, San Carlos has a unique and special importance in the historical period extending from 1776 until the mid1850s. Based on historical documentary research and archaeological investigations, cultural resources in San Carlos are known to be associated with diverse ethnic and religious groups, such as Native Americans, Californios, Franciscan missionaries, and Euroamerican settlers. In the mid-20th century, San Carlos rapidly expanded, due significantly to the Dalmo Victor and Eitel McCullough electronics plants’ construction in 1944. Home of such companies as Dalmo Victor, Ampex, and Varian, San Carlos holds an important place in the history of the electronics industry. Remaining resources that are associated with the surge in the technology industry are of special merit.

The following describes the historical resources in San Carlos that are listed in either the National Register, the California Register, or both:
 Southern Pacific Depot-San Carlos, 559 El Camino Real. The Southern Pacific Railroad Station in San Carlos was constructed in the Richardsonian Romanesque Style in 1888. The station, formally located at 599 El Camino Real was included within the National Register in 1984 and received a status code of “1S,” or “individual property listed in National Register by the Keeper, Listed in California Register.” 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-7
 Nathanial Brittan Party House, 125 Dale Avenue. The Nathanial Brittan Party House at 125 Dale Avenue in the city of San Carlos was constructed in 1872 and included within the National Register of Historic Properties in 1994 (NPS-940011500-9999). The property is listed with status codes of both “1S,” or “individual property listed in National Register by the Keeper, Listed in California Register” and “1D,” or “contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in the NR by the Keeper; listed in the CR.” According to the site record, the “Party House” is a two-and-half story, redwoodframed octagonal “folly” and was constructed for the purposes of entertaining fellow members of the Bohemian Club away from the main home of Mr. Brittan and his wife. The home is significant in the architectural history of California under Criterion C as one of the few remaining examples of the nineteenth century Octagon Mode of building design. The garage on the property was given a status code of “6X,” or “determined ineligible for the NR by SHRC or Keeper.”  621 Knoll Drive. Timby House is eligible for the National Register at the national level of significance under Criterion C in the area of Architecture as it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of construction known as the California Ranch Style during the second generation of the Bay Area architectural tradition. It represents the work of California master architect William Wurster and landscape architect Thomas Church.
3 Local Historical Landmarks
In 1990, a group of volunteers identified and researched the historic resources in San Carlos. The volunteers’ efforts led to the creation of the 1991 Historic Resources Inventory. The inventory contains 52 listings that include residential and commercial structures and one public park. For descriptive purposes, the inventory also identifies two Historic districts - the Hacienda Gardens Apartments at 1315 San Carlos Avenue and the 1000 Block of Elm Street between Morse Boulevard and Brittan Avenue.

Hacienda Gardens, constructed in 1931, was the first apartment complex in the city. Built in the Spanish Eclectic style, the apartments were well suited for the suburban commuter and are an indicator of development trends during the Great Depression. The fourteen units in six buildings of the complex are located on the city’s main thoroughfare at 1315 San Carlos Avenue. In 2005 it received a status code of 7J, or “received by OHP for evaluation but not yet evaluated.” The 1000 block of Elm Street, which consists of structures mainly built between 1926 and 1929, represents a mixture of architectural styles including Spanish Eclectic and Tudor Revival. A noteworthy characteristic of the houses on the street is the general intactness. It is also a symbol of a major period of development in the city.

Archaeological Resources
Due to its large prehistoric populations, the San Francisco Peninsula region is considered archaeologically sensitive for buried sites. All archaeological deposits in San Carlos associated with Native American are potentially eligible for listing in the California Register for their research potential (Criterion D). Literature 3 United States Department of the Interior, 2021, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/CA_San%20Mateo_Timby%20House_DRAFT.pdf, accessed October 8, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-8 JANUARY 2025
on the archaeological resources of the San Carlos region indicates that expected archaeological resources could have important research value and would therefore be significant under CEQA.4

Prehistoric Archaeological Resources
Archaeological literature about the San Francisco Peninsula has tended to place significance on archaeological resources associated with prehistoric populations. Since intact prehistoric archaeological deposits are scarce on the Peninsula, sites with these associations may be considered significant (Criterion D). Potential archaeological remains in San Carlos could be eligible for listing in the California Register on the basis of their association with the Spanish/Mexican Period, the Franciscan missionization of California Native Americans (Criterion A). Archaeological sites and artifacts would have a high degree of interpretive value relative primarily to Native Americans. The Spanish/Mexican period of San Carlos history may also be represented under prehistoric archaeological resources. Remnants of the early inhabitants are limited as there are only a few known archaeological sites in the city located primarily near the banks of Cordilleras and Pulgas Creeks. San Carlos’ existing historic character is defined by its more recent cultural resources.

In 1990, Stanford professor and archaeologist, Barbara Bocek, recorded an archaeological deposit near the bank of Cordilleras Creek (CA-SM-303). The prehistoric site is described as the remains of an earth mound on the creek bank with black midden soils. Fire cracked rock and a large, burned mammal bone, as well as chert flakes and shellfish were all found in association with the midden site. The area surrounding the site has since been developed into a housing division and it is possible that the site extended into the privately owned parcels. Some landowners have also found projectile points within the area.

In 1990, Ms. Bocek recorded an additional prehistoric midden site located on the banks of the Pulgas Creek (CA-SMA-310). The site consisted of several large, non-contiguous patches of black shell-laden earth, stretching along nearly 300 meters of the creek bank, stone flakes, and a possible hammerstone.

Most of the site was destroyed during the construction of San Carlos Avenue and nearby residential development.

Historic Archaeological Resources
Archaeological sites and artifacts in San Carlos may have a high degree of interpretive value relative to the Spanish/Mexican period of the San Francisco Peninsula, California architectural history, the history of missionization in California, and the history of the American Southwest in general (Criterion A).

Resources in the built environment may be considered significant for their architectural and technological history (Criterion C) or may be associated with an important individual such as Leland Stanford (Criterion B).
4 City of San Carlos, June 29, 2005, San Carlos 2030 General Plan EIR. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-9

4.4.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant cultural resource impact if it would:

CULT-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

CULT-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

CULT-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

CULT-4 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative cultural resource impacts in the area.

4.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
CULT-1 The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

The types of cultural resources that meet the definition of historical resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 generally consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant for their traditional, cultural, and/or historical associations, as detailed in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Under CEQA, both prehistoric- and historic-period archaeological sites may qualify based on historical associations. As such, the two main historical resources that are subject to impact, and that may be impacted by implementation of the proposed project, are historical archaeological deposits and historical architectural resources. Potential impacts to archaeological resources are described in impact discussion CULT-2, and potential impacts to human remains are addressed in impact discussion CULT-3.

As discussed under Section 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions, several individual properties and historic districts within the EIR Study Area meet the CEQA definition of a historical resource, including three properties that are individually listed in the National Register and/or California Register. In addition to these known historical resources, unidentified or undesignated historic resources that may be eligible for listing in the National Register and/or California Register exist within the EIR Study Area. Potential impacts from future development on, or adjacent to, historical resources could lead to (1) demolition, which by definition results in the material impairment of a resource’s ability to convey its significance; (2) inappropriate modification, which may use incompatible materials, designs, or construction techniques in a manner that alters character-defining features; and (3) inappropriate new construction, which could introduce incompatible new buildings that clash with an established architectural context. For example, the design characteristics and materials of new construction could impact adjoining or nearby historical buildings.

Future development projects could occur on or near sites containing historic resources. Development activities under the proposed project therefore have the potential to be incompatible with historical resources, which could result in a significant impact. Additionally, if future development were to directly impact existing resources, impacts on historical resources could be significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-10 JANUARY 2025
Future development projects would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations that protect historical resources. On a project-by-project basis, CEQA requires the evaluation and disclosure of significant effects on properties on historical resources listed in the National Register, California Register, or local register, and on properties determined to be significant by the lead agency or eligible for listing in the California Register. Therefore, properties in the EIR Study Area that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National and California Registers would be categorized as historic resources even if they are not formally landmarked by the City. Future projects would be required to comply with SCMC Chapter 15.04, which adopted the 2022 Edition of California Historical Building Code and its regulations for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, related construction, change of use, or continued use of a qualified historical building or structure.

Furthermore, 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 cultural resources, including historic resources. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to historic resources:
 Goal LU-2: Preserve and strengthen Downtown as the civic, cultural and social heart of the city.  Policy LU-2.2: Strive to maintain the character of the historic Downtown core, which is centered at the 1100 and 1200 blocks of San Carlos Avenue and the 600, 700 and 800 blocks of Laurel Street.
 Policy LU-2.3: Encourage development that respects the character of the historic Downtown core.
 Goal LU-12: Protect San Carlos’ historic and cultural resources to maintain and enhance a unique sense of place.
 Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical and cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties.
 Policy LU-12.2: Foster the preservation, restoration and compatible reuse of architecturally and/or historically significant structures and sites.
 Policy LU-12.3: Ensure that modifications to identified historic resources are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.  Policy LU-12.4: Encourage continued use and adaptive reuse of designated historic resources through application of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitation, reconstruction and restoration.
 Policy LU-12.6: Promote the maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation of historical resources through but not limited to the use of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, State incentives including the Mills Act and the California Cultural and Historical Endowment and the California State Historical Building Code.
 Policy LU-12.7: Retain the exterior architectural char- acter and setting of the Historical San Carlos Depot and San Carlos Museum (former San Carlos Fire House). 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-11
 Action LU-12.1: Ensure thorough compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to potential impacts to cultural and historical resources.  Action LU-12.2: Apply for Certified Local Government status to become eligible for participation in federal and State historic preservation programs.
 Action LU-12.3: Update the city’s inventory and map of historic and architecturally significant properties and landmarks every five years.
 Action LU-12.4: Develop a cultural landmark and historic preservation plan and supporting ordinances.

Under CEQA, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would normally mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is a program-level document, it is not possible to determine whether individual projects under the proposed project would be able to conform with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards.

Future projects subject to project-level CEQA review would require evaluation of the project’s potential to affect the significance of a surrounding historical resource and mitigation to the extent feasible. The requirement for subsequent CEQA review, pursuant to State law, would minimize the potential for new development to indirectly affect the significance of existing historical resources to the maximum extent practicable.

Compliance with federal and State laws described in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the SCMC, and the General Plan goal, policies, and action identified above would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

CULT-2 The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Historical and pre-contact archaeological deposits that meet the definition of archaeological resources under CEQA could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing activities associated with future development in San Carlos. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1). Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their significance, either through containing information important in prehistory or history, or through possessing traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially impaired.

As discussed in Section 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions, there are only a few known archeological sites in the city and remnants of the early inhabitants are limited and archaeological resources are not generally expected. However, the potential exists for the presence of undisturbed archaeological resources throughout the EIR Study Area. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-12 JANUARY 2025
excavation, and trenching for utilities) associated with the proposed project may result in unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or the damage or destruction of previously undiscovered resources. Due to the built-out nature of the EIR Study Area, future development would occur in areas that have already been developed, which reduces the potential for disturbing archaeological deposits since grounddisturbing activities have already taken place.

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 cultural resources, including archaeological resources. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to archaeological resources:
 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-12: Protect San Carlos’ historic and cultural resources to maintain and enhance a unique sense of place.
 Policy LU-12.5: Treat with respect and dignity any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the city and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.

Compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and the General Plan goals and policies listed above would protect recorded and unrecorded archaeological deposits in the city.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

CULT-3 The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Previously undiscovered human remains associated with pre-contact archaeological deposits may exist within the EIR Study Area, as ground-disturbing activities sometimes uncover such previously unrecorded remains. As described in impact discussion CULT-2, ground-disturbing activities and excavation for the project would have the potential to uncover buried resources. It is possible that human remains may be present in the EIR Study Area. Descendant communities may ascribe religious or cultural significance to such remains, making any such disturbances a potentially significant impact.

Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code, discussed in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework. In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-13
shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.

Additionally, as discussed in impact discussion CULT-2, 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 cultural resources, including human remains. The General Plan goals and policies listed in impact discussion CULT-2 would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to human remains.

With the mandatory regulatory procedures and compliance with the General Plan goals and policies discussed above, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidentally unearthed during construction activities associated with future development would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

CULT-4 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative cultural resource impacts in the area.

The impacts of future development under implementation of the proposed project on cultural resources tend to be site specific, and cumulative impacts would occur when a series of actions leads to the loss of a substantial type of site, building, or resource. For example, while the loss of a single historic building may not be significant to the character of a neighborhood or streetscape, continued loss of such resources on a project-by-project basis could constitute a significant cumulative effect. This is most obvious in historic districts, where destruction or alteration of a percentage of the contributing elements may lead to a loss of integrity for the district overall. For example, changes to the setting or atmosphere of an area by adding modern structures on all sides of a historically significant building, thus altering the aesthetics of the streetscape, would create a significant impact. Destruction or relocation of historic buildings would also significantly impact the setting.

Future development allowed under the proposed project would be primarily within the developed portions of the EIR Study Area. This, in conjunction with buildout of the city and the region, has the potential to cumulatively impact cultural resources. The existing federal, State, and local regulations and General Plan goals, policies, and actions described throughout this chapter serve to protect cultural resources in San Carlos. Continued compliance with these regulations substantially decreases potential 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-14 JANUARY 2025
impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains to the maximum extent practicable. Cumulative impacts related to cultural resources would therefore be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-1

4.5 ENERGY
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to energy, 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.

Section 21100(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR include a detailed statement with mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F of CEQA Guidelines states that, in order to ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the potential energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR, to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. Appendix F further states that a project’s energy consumption and proposed conservation measures may be addressed, as relevant and applicable, in the project description, environmental setting, and impact analysis portions of technical sections, as well as through mitigation measures and alternatives.

In accordance with Appendix F and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR includes relevant information and analyses that address the energy implications of the proposed project. This chapter summarizes the proposed anticipated energy needs, impacts, and conservation measures associated with future development and activities under the proposed project. The information in this chapter and other aspects of the proposed project’s energy implications are also discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR. The energy usage and transportation fuel usage are included in Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.

4.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was established in response to the 1973 oil crisis. The act created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and prohibited the export of United States crude oil (with a few limited exceptions). It also created Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars starting in model year 1978. The CAFE standards are updated periodically to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions.

The federal government issued new CAFE standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025 that required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) for model year 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-2 JANUARY 2025
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized an updated CAFE and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 through 2026.

On December 21, 2021, under direction of Executive Order (EO) 13990 issued by President Biden, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration repealed Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule Part One, which had preempted state and local laws related to fuel economy standards. In addition, on March 31, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized new fuel standards in response to EO 13990. Fuel efficiency under the standards proposed will increase 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which would be a 10 MPG increase relative to model year 2021.1
On June 7, 2024, NHTSA announced final CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks built in model years 2027-2031 and final fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans built in model years 2030-2035. The final rules establish standards that would require an industry fleet-wide average of approximately 50.4 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2031, by increasing fuel economy by 2 percent year over year for passenger cars (model years 2027-2031) and for light trucks (model years 2029-2031). For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the final rule would increase fuel efficiency at a rate of 10 percent per year (model years 2030-2032) and 8 percent per year (model years 2033-2035).2
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) seeks to provide the nation with greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of clean renewable fuels; improving vehicle fuel economy; and increasing the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. It also seeks to improve the energy performance of the federal government. The act sets increased CAFE Standards; the Renewable Fuel Standard; appliance energy-efficiency standards; building energyefficiency standards; and accelerated research and development tasks on renewable energy sources (e.g., solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies), carbon capture, and sequestration.3

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model year 2024-2026. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standardsmodel-year-2024-2026, accessed September 18, 2024. 2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, June 7, 2024, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, NHTSA Announces Final Rule for CAFE and HDPUV Standards. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy, accessed September 18, 2024.
3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, updated May 12, 2022, Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act, accessed September 18, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-3
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. This Act includes tax incentives for energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings, fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities, and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers.

National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, the National Energy Policy is designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the United States Department of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the United States Department of Transportation develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system.

State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
Established in 1974, the Warren-Alquist Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the state’s unsustainable growing demand for energy resources. The CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing State energy policy, encouraging energy efficiency, certifying thermal power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies. The Warren-Alquist Act is updated annually to address current energy needs and issues, and its latest edition was in January 2023.

California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 under the Warren-Alquist Act as the State’s principal energy planning organization in order to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response to the 1973 oil embargo. The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing state energy policy:
 Forecast statewide electricity needs.
 License power plants to meet those needs.
 Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures.
 Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-4 JANUARY 2025
 Promote research, development and demonstration.
 Plan for and direct the state’s response to energy emergencies.

California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. This Plan sets forth the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant reductions in energy demand:
 All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;4  All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;  Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
 All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

With respect to the commercial sector, the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan notes that commercial buildings, which include schools, hospitals, and public buildings, consume more electricity than any other end-use sector in California. The commercial sector’s five billion-plus square feet of space accounts for 38 percent of the state’s power use and over 25 percent of natural gas consumption.

Lighting, cooling, refrigeration, and ventilation account for 75 percent of all commercial electric use, while space heating, water heating, and cooking account for over 90 percent of gas use. In 2006, schools and colleges were in the top five facility types for electricity and gas consumption, accounting for approximately 10 percent of state’s electricity and gas use.5

The CPUC and CEC have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
 Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean, distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.  Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.
 Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative utility initiatives.
4 Zero net energy buildings are buildings that the total amount of energy used by the building on an annual basis is equal to or less than the amount of renewable energy created on the site. 5 California Public Utilities Commission, January 2011, CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/files/legacyfiles/c/5303-caenergyefficiencystrategicplan-jan2011.pdf, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-5
Renewable Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08 The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and was amended in 2006, 2011, and 2018. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Initially under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S 14 08 was signed in November 2008, which expanded the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the California legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). The California Public Utilities Commission is required to provide quarterly progress reports on progress toward RPS goals. This has accelerated the development of renewable energy projects throughout the state.

Senate Bill 350
Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 350 on October 7, 2015, which expands the RPS by establishing a goal of 50 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses upon which an energy efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the CPUC, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. SB 350 also provides for the transformation of the California Independent System Operator into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states and to improve the access of consumers served by the California Independent System Operator to those markets, pursuant to a specified process.

Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which replaces the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. It requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Additionally, SB 1020 requires all state agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zerocarbon resources by 2035. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-6 JANUARY 2025
2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report
The California Energy Commission (CEC) published the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report to identify pathways to deeply decarbonize the state’s electricity system in response to meeting the SB 100 goal of zero-carbon by 2045. The report provides an analysis of electricity sector trends, building decarbonization and energy efficient, zero-emission vehicles, energy equity, climate change adaptation, electricity reliability, natural gas assessment, and electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy demand forecasts. The aim is to leverage California’s clean electricity system to decarbonize, or remove carbon from, other portions of the state’s energy system. SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery, distribution, electricity demand, and price to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State’s economy, and protect public health and safety.

Energy Efficiency Regulations
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of Regulations Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.6
California Building Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission in December 2021. The 2022 standards became effective and replaced the existing 2019 standards on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards would require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric-ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the new standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high-rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, 6 California Energy Commission, 2017, 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/2016-applianceefficiency-regulations-5104f7.pdf, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-7
retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.7 The 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted in September 2024 and will become effective on January 1, 2026. The Building Energy and Efficiency Standards and CALGreen undergo a triennial update with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and nonresidential buildings by 2030.

California Building Code: Title 24, Part 11, Green Building Standards On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen update, which was approved as part of 2022 Energy Code became effective on January 1, 2023, and provides updates to the residential and non-residential voluntary measures.

Overall, the code is established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency.8 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. They contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of Regulations Title 20, Parts 1600–1608).

These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
7 California Energy Commission, 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code) Draft Environmental Report. CEC-400-2021-077-D.
8 California Building Standards Commission, July 2022, 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/copyright, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-8 JANUARY 2025
Off-road Equipment and Transportation-Related Regulations Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the USEPA. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under Federal, above). In January 2012, the California Air Resources Board approved the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.9 Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449
Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8 was adopted on May 2, 2008 that limits non-essential idling of fleets to no more than five consecutive minutes at any location.

This idling restriction applies to all vehicles in California with a diesel-fueled or alternative diesel-fueled off-road engine, unless a waiver provides sufficient justification that such idling is necessary.

Senate Bill 375
In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional longrange transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the MPO for the Bay Area region, which includes the city of San Carlos. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
9 California Air Resources Board, January 18, 2017, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/ACC%20MTR%20Summary_Ac.pdf, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-9
AB 1007 State Alternative Fuels Plans
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes 2005) required the CEC to prepare a State plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative, nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-State production.

The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase inState production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 was issued, which sets a time frame for the transition to zero-emissions (ZE) passenger vehicles and trucks in addition to off-road equipment. It directs CARB to develop and propose the following:
 Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) sold in California toward the target of 100 percent of in-state sales by 2035.  Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZE trucks and buses sold and operated in California toward the target of 100 percent of the fleet transitioning to ZEVs by 2045 everywhere feasible, and for all drayage trucks to be ZE by 2035.  Strategies to achieve 100 percent zero emissions from all off-road vehicles and equipment operations in California by 2035, in cooperation with other State agencies, the EPA, and local air districts.

On August 25, 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations that codifies the EO goal of 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and trucks be ZE by 2035. Starting in year 2026, ACC II requires that 35 percent of new vehicles sold be ZE or plug-in hybrids.10 Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
In April 2023, CARB released the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation to accelerate the transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.11 In conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, the ACF regulations helps to ensure that medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) are brought to the market, by requiring certain fleets to purchase ZEVs. The ACF ZEV phase-in approach which provides initial focus where the best fleet electrification opportunities exist, sets clear 10 California Air Resources Board, August 25, 2022, California moves to accelerate to 100% new zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035#:~:text=The %20rule%20establishes%20a%20year,Order%20N%2D79%2D20, accessed September 18, 2024. 11 California Air Resources Board, 2024, Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ advanced-clean-fleets/about, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-10 JANUARY 2025
targets for regulated fleets to make a full conversion to ZEVs, and creates a catalyst to accelerate development of a heavy-duty public infrastructure network.

The ACF regulations covers four main elements:
 Manufacturer sales mandate. Manufacturers may sell only zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles starting in 2036.
 Drayage fleets. Beginning January 1, 2024, trucks must be registered in the CARB Online System to conduct drayage activities in California. Non-zero-emission “legacy” drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System through December 31, 2023. Legacy drayage trucks can continue to operate through their minimum useful life. Beginning January 1, 2024, only zero-emission drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System. All drayage trucks entering seaports and intermodal railyards would be required to be zero-emission by 2035.
 High priority and federal fleets. High priority and federal fleets must comply with the Model Year Schedule or may elect to use the optional ZEVMilestones Option to phase-in ZEVs into their fleets:
 Model Year Schedule: Fleets must purchase only ZEVs beginning 2024 and, starting January 1, 2025, must remove internal combustion engine vehicles at the end of their useful life as specified in the regulation.
 ZEVMilestones Option (Optional): Instead of the Model Year Schedule, fleets may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification.
 State and local agencies. State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and State agency fleets, would be required to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases are zeroemission beginning in 2024 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission by 2027. Small government fleets (those with 10 or fewer vehicles) and those in designated counties would start their ZEV purchases beginning in 2027. Alternately, State and local government fleet owners may elect to meet ZEV targets using the ZEV Milestones Option. State and local government fleets may purchase either ZEVs or near-ZEVs, or a combination of ZEVs and near-ZEVs, until 2035. Starting in 2035, only ZEVs will meet the requirements.

The ACF regulations would also establish requirements that transform the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector and demonstrate independent utility through achievement of the following objectives:
 Achieve criteria and GHG emissions reductions consistent with the goals identified in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Strategy and Scoping Plan.
 Provide emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities (DAC), thereby supporting the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia, C., Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017).  Support the goals of Executive Order N-79-20 which calls for accelerated ZEV deployment with these targets:
 100 percent ZE drayage by 2035
 100 percent ZE trucks and buses where feasible by 2045  Ensure requirements, such as ZEV deployment schedules and related infrastructure build-out, are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and support market conditions. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-11
 Lead the transition away from petroleum fuels and towards electric drivetrains.  Contribute towards achieving carbon neutrality in California pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 100, and in accordance with Executive Order B-55-18.
 Mindfully set requirements to allow time for public ZE infrastructure buildout for smaller fleets or for regional haul applications who would be reliant on a regional network of public chargers.  Ensure manufacturers and fleets work together to place ZEVs in service suitably and successfully as market expands.
 Establish a fair and level playing field among fleet owners.  Craft the Proposed Project in a way that ensures institutional capacity for CARB to manage, implement, and enforce requirements.

Energy Storage
California has set ambitious long-term goals for energy storage beyond 2026 to support its clean energy and climate goals. The state aims to reach 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, which will require significant investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as energy storage technologies to balance the variability of these sources.

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has a total energy storage capacity of more than 3,160 megawatts (MW) as of June 2022.12 This includes both large-scale and distributed energy storage systems, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage, and thermal storage. CAISO is responsible for managing the electricity grid for much of California, and it has set a target of adding 3,300 MW of additional energy storage capacity by 2024 to support the integration of more renewable energy sources like wind and solar. As part of SB 100, load serving entities (LSEs) were required to procure no less than

1.3 gigawatts (GW) of energy storage capacity by 2020, and 3 GW by 2030. Additionally, the CPUC has established a target of 15 GW of energy storage capacity by 2030.13 The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
CAISO develops a coordinated grid management plan to integrate the generation and storage capacities of LSEs, called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP is a comprehensive planning document that outlines CAISO’s forecasts for electricity demand, supply, and transmission needs over a 20-year planning horizon, as well as its strategies for integrating renewable energy resources and other grid services to meet those needs. The plan is developed in collaboration with LSEs, regulators, and other stakeholders, and is updated periodically to reflect changes in the energy landscape and evolving policy goals. Overall, the IRP plays a critical role in ensuring the reliability and resilience of California’s electricity grid as the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system. 12 California Independent System Operator, June 14, 2022, “A golden age of energy storage,” https://www.caiso.com/ about/news/a-golden-age-of-energy-storage-2, accessed September 18, 2024. 13 California Public Utilities Commission, December 1, 2022, CPUC Creates New Framework to Advance California’s Transition Away From Natural Gas, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cpuc-creates-new-framework-toadvance-california-transition-away-from-natural-gas. accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-12 JANUARY 2025
When an individual battery energy storage (BES) facility or generation infrastructure (i.e., solar panels) comes online in California, it is typically included in the IRP through a process known as the Interconnection Queue. The Interconnection Queue is managed by the CAISO, which oversees the operation of the State’s electricity grid.

The Interconnection Queue
The Interconnection Queue is an application process that functions as a waiting list of proposed electricity generation and storage projects that are seeking to connect to the grid. When a new BES facility or generation infrastructure is proposed, the developer submits an application to CAISO to request an interconnection to the grid. CAISO evaluates the application to ensure that the facility meets technical and operational requirements, such as voltage regulation and frequency response, and that it can be integrated effectively into the grid.

Once the BES facility or generation infrastructure is approved by CAISO, it is assigned a point of interconnection on the grid, and its output is added to the IRP as a resource that can provide electricity and other grid services, such as frequency regulation or ramping support. The facility is then dispatched by CAISO based on its bids into the day-ahead and real-time electricity markets, and its output is used to help balance supply and demand on the grid in real-time.

Overall, the Interconnection Queue is an important mechanism for integrating new BES facilities and other electricity resources into the California grid, and for ensuring that the grid remains reliable and resilient as the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.

Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.14 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live within one half mile of frequent transit by 2050, with this share increasing to over 70 percent for households with low incomes. Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land 14 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 18, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-13
use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the state mandate of a 19-percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035 — but only if all strategies are implemented.15 To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. Parts of the EIR Study Area lies within the Railroad Corridor PDA.16
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s 2030 GHG 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:
 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.
17 A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next 3 to 5 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, toxic air contaminants, 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. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following 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). 15 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 18, 2024.
16 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, January 2024 (updated), Priority Development Areas, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/5572ccb7bfe2426eae086c35931f1d0e_0/explore?location =37.503733%2C-122.264927%2C14.44.
17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Spare the Air: Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-capvol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-14 JANUARY 2025
 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.

City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County is responsible for providing countywide transportation planning. In San Mateo County, C/CAG is the Congestion Management Agency tasked with preparing the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) that describes the strategies to address congestion problems and monitoring compliance. C/CAG works cooperatively with MTC, transit agencies, local governments, Caltrans and BAAQMD. C/CAG’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2023 San Mateo County CMP Update adopted October 2023.18 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.

San Mateo County's Alternative Fuel Readiness Plan
The Alternative Fuel Readiness Plan (AFRP) for San Mateo County provides a resource regarding the increased use and incorporation of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel infrastructure in communities within San Mateo County. This AFRP provides an overview of each alternative fuel in the marketplace and presents the motivations for having an AFRP, including existing legislation and incentives, environmental benefits, and economic factors.

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 4.5.3, 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 18 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
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-15
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 energy as follows:
 Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems, allows for an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems.
 Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, adopts the Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code (2022 Edition) and Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen.
 Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, lists requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, state organic recycling laws, and Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016 to reduce solid waste generated in their jurisdictions.  Chapter 15.20, Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations while promoting public health and safety on the installation and use of such charging stations.

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.
19 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 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% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% 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.
19 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%20Manager/Sustainability/Climate%20Ac tion/CMAP%20Final.pdf, accessed September 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-16 JANUARY 2025

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity is quantified using kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt-hours (kWh), and natural gas is measured in therms. A therm is a measurement of the amount of heat energy in natural gas, equal to 100,000 British thermal units (BTUs). The volumetric billing unit used for natural gas delivered to customers is typically expressed in hundreds of cubic feet (Ccf)—approximately 0.01 therm per Ccf—or thousands of cubic feet (Mcf)—approximately 10.37 therms per Mcf.20 A kW is a measure of 1,000 watts of electrical power and a kWh is a measure of electrical energy equivalent to a power consumption of 1,000 watts for one hour.

The kWh is commonly used as a billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electric utilities.

According to the CEC’s “Tracking Progress” regarding statewide energy demand, total electric energy usage in California was 287,826 gigawatt hours in 2022. 21 A gigawatt is equal to one million kilowatts.

Energy Providers
Two energy providers, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), serve end users in the EIR Study Area, as described below.

Peninsula Clean Energy
PCE was created as a Community Choice Aggregation program by San Mateo County in 2016 and all of its cities and town.22 PCE aims to provide electricity that is 100 percent renewable or carbon-free by 2025.

PCE provides two different production options for electricity: ECOplus (default option) and ECO100 (100 percent renewable product).

Sources of electricity sold by PCE under the ECOplus plan in 2023, the latest year for which data are available, were:23
 51.7 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind.  48.3 percent large hydroelectric.

Customers are automatically enrolled in ECOplus but have the option of opting up to ECO100, which provides 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity.24 Conversely, customers have the option to opt out of PCE renewable energy sources and receive their energy service from PG&E. PG&E is 20 United States Energy Information Administration, 2024, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), https://www.eia.gov/tools/ faqs/faq.php?id=45&t=7, accessed September 18, 2024. 21 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by Planning Area, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecby plan.aspx, accessed September 18, 2024.
22 Peninsula Clean Energy, Background, https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/background/, accessed September 18, 2024.
23 Peninsula Clean Energy, Energy Mix, https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/power-mix/, accessed September 18, 2024.
24 Peninsula Clean Energy, Energy Choices, https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/energy-choices/, accessed September 18, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-17
responsible for maintaining transmission lines, handling customer billing, and responding to new service requests and emergencies within the PCE service area.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Electricity
PG&E is a publicly traded utility company which generates, purchases, and transmits energy and natural gas under contract with CPUC. PG&E’s service territory is 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to Eureka, south to Bakersfield, west to the Pacific Ocean, and east to the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit-miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit-miles of interconnected transmission lines.25 PG&E owns and maintains above-ground networks of electric transmission and distribution facilities throughout the city.

PG&E electricity is generated by a combination of sources such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, also known as solar farms. The bulk electric grid (collectively referred to as “the grid”) is a network of high-voltage transmission lines linked to power plants within the PG&E system. The distribution system, consisting of lower voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level, and consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to the individual customer.

Natural Gas
PG&E gas transmission pipeline systems serve approximately 4.5 million gas customers in northern and central California.26 The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program. The system operates in real time on a 24-hour basis, and includes leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the pipelines. PG&E also adopted the Pipeline 2020 program, which aims to modernize critical pipeline infrastructure, expand the use of automatic or remotely operated shut-off valves, catalyze development of next-generation inspection technologies, develop industry-leading best practices, and enhance public safety partnerships with local communities, public officials, and first responders. Total natural gas consumption in PG&E’s service area was 442,163,006,000 kilo-BTU (KBTU) for 2022.27 In 2022, approximately 38 percent of PG&E’s energy generated came from renewable resources including biopower, geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. PG&E’s portfolio consisted of 49 percent nuclear generation, 8 percent large hydroelectric facilities, and 5 percent natural gas.28 25 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024, Company profile, https://www.pge.com/en/about/company-information/ company-profile.html, accessed September 18, 2024.
26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024, Company profilehttps://www.pge.com/en/about/company-information/ company-profile.html, accessed September 18, 2024.
27 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by Entity, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx., accessed September 18, 2024.
28 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2024, Clean Energy Solutions, https://www.pge.com/en/about/corporate-responsibilityand-sustainability/taking-responsibility/clean-energy-solutions.html, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-18 JANUARY 2025
PG&E and PCE together provide electrical services to users in the EIR Study Area. PG&E is the sole provider of natural gas services in the city. PG&E provides distribution of electrical services in the city, while PCE provides the electrical commodity. PCE works in conjunction with PG&E to provide electricity to consumers through the use of PG&E’s distribution infrastructure and network. Both utilities are regulated by CPUC.

The existing electricity and natural gas consumption attributable to nonresidential and residential land uses in the EIR Study Area is shown in Table 4.5-1, Estimated Existing Electricity and Natural Gas Demand.

TABLE 4.5-1 ESTIMATED EXISTING ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS DEMAND Parameter
Electricity Usage
(kWh/year) a
Natural Gas Usage
(Therms/year) a
Residential 66,307,811 5,695,217
Nonresidential 108,796,274 2,527,969
Total 175,104,085 8,223,187
2024 Service Population b 51,610
Per Service Population Consumption 3,393 159
Notes:
a. Based on 5-year average electricity and natural gas usage data provided by PG&E and PCE. b. Service population = residents + jobs.

Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.

Fuel Consumption
California is one of the top producers of petroleum in the nation, with drilling operations throughout the state. A network of crude oil pipelines connects production areas to oil refineries in the Los Angeles area, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Central Valley. California oil refineries also process Alaskan and foreign crude oil received in ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Crude oil production in California and Alaska is in decline, and California refineries have become increasingly dependent on foreign imports.29 Since 2012, foreign supplies, led by Saudi Arabia through 2019, Ecuador in 2020 and 2021, and Iraq in 2022, provide over half of the crude oil refined in California. 30 According to
the United States Energy Information Administration, California’s field production of crude oil has steadily declined since the mid-1980s with a total production of approximately 118 million barrels in 2023.31
29 California Energy Commission, Annual Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries, https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/annual-oil-supply-sources-california, accessed September 18, 2024. 30 California Energy Commission, Foreign Sources of Crude Oil Imports to California https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/foreign-sources-crude-oil-imports, accessed September 18, 2024. 31 United States Energy Information Administration, August 30, 2024, Petroleum & Other Liquids, Crude Oil Production, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-19
California stretches two-thirds of the way up the United States West Coast and with such great distances to travel, transportation accounts for the largest share of the state's energy consumption.32 Californians have more registered motor vehicles and travel more vehicle miles than residents in any other state.33 Overall, the state's transportation sector accounts for nearly two-fifths (i.e., 2,916 trillion BTUs) of California's total energy consumption and uses about 85 percent of the petroleum consumed in the state.
34 In San Mateo County, approximately 265 million gallons of gasoline and 15 million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in 2022.35
Table 4.5-2, Existing Operation-Related Annual Fuel Consumption, shows the estimated annual fuel consumption currently generated under existing baseline conditions. Fuel consumption is based on VMT from vehicle trips beginning and ending in the EIR Study Area and from external/internal trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the EIR Study Area).

TABLE 4.5-2 EXISTING OPERATION-RELATED ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION Gas
(gal/year)
Diesel
(gal/year)
Compressed Natural Gas
(gal/year)
Electricity
(kWh/year)
9,597,866 740,431 33,903 5,459,817
Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.

4.5.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant energy impact if it would:

ENE-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

ENE-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

ENE-3 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative energy impacts in the area.
32 United States Energy Information Administration, 2022, State Energy Data System, Table C1, Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_sum/html/ sum_btu_1.html, accessed September 18, 2024.
33 United States Department of Transportation, January 1, 2022, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistic Series:

State Statistical Abstracts, California, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/74141, accessed September 18, 2024. 34 United States Energy Information Administration, May 16, 2024, California State Energy Profile, https://www.eia.gov/ state/print.php?sid=CA, accessed September 18, 2024.
35 California Energy Commission, August 16, 2023, 2022 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15), https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting, accessed September 18, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-20 JANUARY 2025

4.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
ENE-1 The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Construction
Future development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would create temporary demands for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and therefore is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during future construction activities.

Future construction activities would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of project construction. Furthermore, the construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption.

Also, future projects within the EIR Study Area would be similar to projects recently constructed and currently in development within the EIR Study Area. Overall, there would be no unusual project characteristics anticipated that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of California. Therefore, short-term construction activities that occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project are not anticipated to result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Decreasing Overall Per Capita Energy Consumption
Operation of future development projects would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions. Operational use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on- 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-21
site equipment and appliances; lighting; and charging electric vehicles. Future projects would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on-road vehicles.

Building Electricity
Electrical service to the EIR Study Area is provided by PG&E and PCE through connections to existing offsite electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 4.5-3, Year 2045 Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2045, electricity use in the EIR Study Area would increase by 139,929,443 kWh/year, or approximately 54 percent, from existing conditions.

TABLE 4.5-3 YEAR 2045 FORECAST ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Land Use
Electricity Usage (kWh/year) a
Existing Conditions Proposed Project Net Change
Nonresidential 108,796,274 207,139,460 98,343,186
Residential 66,307,811 107,894,068 41,586,257
Total 175,104,085 315,033,528 139,929,443
Service Population 51,610 93,770 42,160
Per Service Population Annual Consumption 3,393 3,360 (33) Note:
a. Residential energy and nonresidential energy forecasts do not account for reductions due to increases in energy efficiency from compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.

Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.

As shown in Table 4.5-3, the per service population electricity consumption is estimated to decrease from 3,393 kWh per person per year in 2024 to 3,360 kWh per person per year in 2045, or a reduction of approximately 33 kWh annually. The 2045 electricity consumption estimates reflect the electricity consumption rates of the existing community which is made up of a building stock that consists of varying ages and energy efficiency performances. The EIR Study Area is largely built out and net new development would largely occur through the renovation, expansion, and replacement of existing development. All new development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards in effect at the time the individual development applications are submitted and can therefore be expected to be more energy-efficient than the use being replaced, resulting in reductions in building electricity consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when compared to existing development. It should be noted that it is unknown how much more energy-efficient future iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would be in 2045 compared to existing conditions as those code updates are released on a 3-year cycle. In addition, SCMC Chapter 15.04 requires many new construction projects to be designed all-electric; however, it is unknown at this time to what extent this requirement would be placed on new construction projects due to the varying exceptions that could apply. Therefore, compliance with this ordinance is not accounted for in the building energy calculations herein.

The Land Use (LU) Element and Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-22 JANUARY 2025
decisions to consider impacts to energy, including use and efficiency. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy:
 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 -9.1: 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.  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.

As a result of compliance with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and implementation of the above General Plan goals and policies, per service population building electricity consumption is expected to decrease in 2045 compared to existing conditions.

Building Natural Gas
As shown in Table 4.5-4, Year 2045 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, natural gas use under the proposed project is estimated to total 14,080,138 therms annually. While the City currently has a reach code requiring all-electric building designs for most new projects (SCMC Section 4.106.5), it cannot be guaranteed that every individual development project facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to this requirement. To provide a conservative assessment of potential energy consumption in 2045, new building space is assumed to include natural gas for space and water heating for the purposes of this analysis. With this assumption, by 2045, natural gas use in the EIR Study Area would increase by 5,856,952 therms annually, or approximately 71 percent, from existing conditions. As a result, the per service population natural gas consumption is estimated to slightly decrease from 159 therms per person per year in 2024 to 150 therms per person per year in 2045 for natural gas. As described above, this number can be considered to represent a conservative (i.e., “worst case” scenario) as many future development projects would be subject to the reach code’s all-electric requirements. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-23
TABLE 4.5-4 YEAR 2045 FORECAST NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION
Land Use
Natural Gas Usage (Therms per year) a
Existing Conditions Proposed Project Net Change
Nonresidential 2,527,969 4,813,053 2,285,083
Residential 5,695,217 9,267,085 3,571,868
Total 8,223,187 14,080,138 5,856,952
Service Population 51,610 93,770 42,160
Per Service Population Annual Consumption 159 150 (9)
Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
a. Residential energy and nonresidential energy forecasts do not account for reductions due to increases in energy efficiency from compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.

Source: See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR Similar to electricity consumption, all future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen and would result in reductions in heating fuel (i.e., natural gas or propane) consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when compared to existing development in the EIR Study Area. Moreover, General Plan Policy LU-8.18 and Policy EM-9.2 would serve to improve energy efficiency and reduce natural gas consumption in future development facilitated by the proposed project. As a result of continued compliance with energy efficiency standards from the State and City, per service population heating fuel consumption is expected to decrease in 2045 compared to existing conditions greater than what is shown in Table 4.5-4.

Transportation Energy
The growth accommodated under the proposed project would consume transportation energy from the use of motor vehicles (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, electricity). As shown in Table 4.5-5, Year 2045 Forecast Fuel Consumption, implementation of the proposed project would increase transportation fuel consumption from 10,372,200 gallons per year and 5,459,817 kWh per year in 2024 to 14,168,234 gallons per year and 21,508,783 kWh per year in 2045 in the EIR Study Area, or an increase of approximately 37 percent for transportation fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and natural gas and approximately 294 percent for transportation electricity. Service population would also increase under the proposed project, from approximately 51,610 people to 93,770 people, or an increase of approximately 82 percent. Largely as a result of the growth in population and VMT combined with the increasing countywide fleet mix of electric vehicles through 2045, per service population fuel consumption would decrease from 171 gallons per person per year in 2024 to 151 gallons per person per year in 2045 and per service population transportation electricity consumption would increase from 90 kWh per person per year in 2024 to 229 kWh per person per year in 2045.

Varying conditions influence fuel consumption, such as vehicle fuel type and fuel economy, in addition to market trends toward accelerated electric vehicle adoption and resident commuter behavior in response to the land use pattern (e.g., whether jobs are close to the employee’s residence). As described in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would reduce VMT per service population and therefore increase the efficiency associated with automobile usage. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-24 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.5-5 YEAR 2045 FORECAST FUEL CONSUMPTION
Existing Conditions Proposed Project Net Change
Gasoline
Gallons/year 9,597,866 13,359,778 3,761,912
Diesel
Gallons/year 740,431 778,429 37,999
Compressed Natural Gas
Gallons/year 33,903 30,027 (3,876)
Electricity
Kilowatt-hours/year 5,459,817 21,508,783 16,048,967
Total Gallons/Year 10,372,200 14,168,234 3,796,035
Total kWh/Year 5,459,817 21,508,783 16,048,967
Service Population (SP) 51,610 93,770 33,180
Gallons/SP 201 151 (50)
kWh/SP 106 229 124
Note: Daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is provided by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 2024 and was used with San Mateo County fleet mix and fuel consumption estimates to calculate fuel consumption for the proposed project. Accounting of fuel consumption is based on the recommendations of California Air Resources Boards’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee created under Senate Bill 375 for multiplying daily VMT by 347 days per year.

Source: Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.

Furthermore, the average vehicle fuel economy would improve between 2024 and 2045 as vehicle manufacturers comply with CAFE standards and other fuel economy standards, resulting in lower transportation energy consumption per mile traveled. Therefore, it is anticipated that, per person, transportation energy consumed would decrease over time as vehicles’ fuel efficiency improves.

As shown in Table 4.5-3 and Table 4.5-4, the proposed project would result in a decrease in per service population electricity consumption rate of approximately 33 kWh per year in buildings and a slight decrease in per service population natural gas consumption rate of approximately 9 therms per year.

Moreover, as shown in Table 4.5-5, per service population transportation fuel consumption would decrease by an estimated 50 gallons per year and increase by an estimated 124 kWh per year from 2024 to 2045. While the increase in transportation electricity would be substantial, it does not imply the consumption of those energy resources would be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary as they would be associated with the transportation needs of residents and employees in San Carlos.

Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would be considered to conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. As discussed in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, individual development projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBSC current at the time of their building application submittal, including the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. As the current CBSC is the 2022 CBSC, individual development projects going through the application process today would result in greater energy efficiency than the current performance of existing structures in the EIR Study Area. In addition, the 2022 CBSC currently includes prescriptive measures for development projects to include rooftop photovoltaic systems and 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-25
BES infrastructure or demonstrate energy efficiency performance equivalent to including photovoltaic and BES features.

In addition to improvements in energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation and energy storage standards, SB 100 requires that LSEs incrementally increase their energy procurement sources to include eligible renewable and carbon-free sources. By January 1, 2046, all LSEs in California are required to source 100 percent of their in-state electricity sales from renewable and carbon-free sources. As a result, individual development projects accommodated by the proposed project would improve their energy efficiency through compliance with the CBSC current at the time of their building application submittal and LSEs would supply electricity that is increasingly sourced from carbon-free sources.

Moreover, consistent with Executive Order N-79-20 and CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation, which require that 100 percent of in-state vehicle sales starting in 2035 are electric or hybrid electric, vehicles utilized by future residents and employees accommodated by the proposed project are expected to consist more of EVs than what is experienced under existing conditions. Specifically, General Plan Policy EM-9.2 and Policy LU-8.18, listed above, encourages the reduction of nonrenewable energy use and improvement of energy efficiency. As a result, the proposed project would incrementally decrease reliance on fossil fuel energy resources through 2045.

Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy
As discussed above, the 2022 CBSC currently includes provisions for development projects to include rooftop photovoltaic systems and BES infrastructure or demonstrate energy efficiency performance equivalent to including photovoltaic and BES features. In addition, it is anticipated that each new code cycle for the CBSC improves on the last one and requires higher performance for energy efficiency and incorporates additional requirements for on-site renewable energy and EV charging infrastructure.

Future development projects would therefore result in a net increase from existing conditions in on-site photovoltaic electricity generation and EV charging stations and associated infrastructure, further supporting and accelerating the adoption of EVs and the use of renewable energy in future years.

Similarly, LSEs that serve future development projects, such as PG&E and PCE, would be required to incrementally increase their energy procurement sources to include eligible renewable and carbon-free sources through 2045 under SB 100. As a result, electricity consumed by individual development projects as well as existing structures in the EIR Study Area would rely more on renewable and carbon-free sources for electricity in future years than is experienced under existing conditions.

Moreover, the Land Use (LU) Element, Circulation & Scenic Highways (CSH) Element, and Environmental Management (EM) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to energy, including renewable energy. The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to support the use of renewable energy beyond compliance with the CBSC, including creating a walkable urban environment to encourage future residents and employees in the EIR Study Area to use active modes of transportation instead of motorized vehicles to minimize VMT:
 Goal LU-1: Ensure sustainable land use pattern.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-26 JANUARY 2025
 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 CSH-3: Maintain a street and highway system which accommodates future growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service.
 Policy CSH-3.4: Support Smart Growth and Sustainability principles to reduce travel time from housing to jobs, provide affordable transportation to all members of the community, allow compact mixed-use development and decrease dependency on automobiles.  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-11.7: Support programs to reduce vehicle trips associated with transporting students to and from schools.
 Policy EM-11.11: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance that contains strategies to reduce vehicle trips.

Summary
Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, Renewables Portfolio Standard, and CAFE standards) would increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. Additionally, the General Plan goals and policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation identified above will further contribute to minimizing building, transportation-related energy, and nonrenewable sources of energy demands. As stated, future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would reduce the per capita transportation energy consumption, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, and increase reliance on renewable energy sources.

Implementation of policies in the proposed project, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the proposed project would decrease overall energy consumption, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, and increase reliance on renewable energy. As such, the energy consumption under the proposed project would not 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-27
be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, energy impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

ENE-2 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program.

Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), 90 percent by 2035 (SB 1020), 95 percent by 2040 (SB 1020), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 1020 requires all State agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2035.

The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as PG&E and PCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. In addition, customers are automatically enrolled in the PCE’s ECOplus program which uses approximately 50 percent renewable energy and 100 percent clean energy.36 Even if customers in the EIR Study Area were to opt out of the ECOplus program, and therefore receive all their electricity from PG&E, approximately 38 percent of PG&E’s electricity was generated from renewable energy resources in 2022. 37 PG&E is set to meet the
State’s new 60 percent renewable energy mandate set forth in SB 100 and has committed to net zero energy system in 2040, which is five years ahead of California’s current carbon neutrality goal. 38 As listed in impact discussion ENE-1, the proposed project includes goals and policies that would contribute to minimizing inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary transportation energy consumption, and ensure compliance with State, regional, or local plans for renewable energy. Lastly, future development projects would be required to comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program, and impacts would be less than significant.
36 Peninsula Clean Energy, 2024, Energy Choices, https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/energy-choices/, accessed October 15, 2024. 37 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024, Clean Energy Solutions, https://www.pge.com/en/about/corporateresponsibility-and-sustainability/taking-responsibility/clean-energy-solutions.html#:~:text=PG&E%20is%20proud%20to%20 deliver,nuclear%20and%20large%20hydroelectric%20power, accessed October 15, 2024. 38 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024, PG&E’s Climate Strategy Report, https://www.pge.com/en/about/corporateresponsibility-and-sustainability/taking-responsibility.html, accessed October 15, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-28 JANUARY 2025
Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
As mentioned, the City’s current CMAP was developed and adopted by City Council in September 2021 as a direct update to the 2009 CAP.
39 The CMAP provides community-wide emissions forecasts for 2030 and 2050, relying on growth assumptions from California Department of Finance and ABAG. This CMAP establishes higher GHG reduction targets than the 2009 CAP, with GHG emissions targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels (equal to 49 percent below 2005 levels) by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels (or 83 percent below 2005 levels) by 2050. Future revisions to the CMAP may include more stringent GHG reduction targets as they are feasible and appropriate.

Because the proposed project does not alter any of the strategies within the CMAP, the proposed project would not conflict with the strategies in the CMAP or hinder implementation of the CMAP. Furthermore, as listed in impact discussion ENE-1, the proposed project includes goals and policies that would contribute to minimizing inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary transportation energy consumption, and ensure compliance with State, regional, or local plans for renewable energy. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the CMAP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

ENE-3 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative energy impacts in the area.

Cumulative impacts would 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.

All the development projects within the vicinity of the project’s EIR Study Area are within the service area of PCE and PG&E. These projects would result in a long-term increase in operational energy demand for electricity and natural gas use associated with population growth. In addition, construction activities would require the use of energy for purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, and construction of development projects may overlap. However, all projects developed within the PCE and PG&E service area would implement the requirements of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Code. Furthermore, new buildings would use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. 39 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%20Manager/Sustainability/Climate%20Ac tion/CMAP%20Final.pdf, accessed September 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-29
Future development would also increase annual VMT, and thus fuel consumption. However, vehicles would be subject to the USEPA CAFE standards for vehicular fuel efficiency, and average corporate fuel economy continues to increase as a result of State and federal laws, including the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program. Vehicle turnover also improves the overall fuel economy of California’s vehicle fleets. The proposed project also includes goals and policies to reduce energy use as well as aligning with the state’s goals for carbon neutrality. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ENERGY

4.5-30 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-1

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to geology and soils, 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.

4.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 was intended to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program. Pursuant to this Act, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was established, which designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program. Programs provide valuable resources to guide building code requirements and planning efforts such as emergency evacuation responsibilities and seismic code standards.

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 (PRPA) limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency. Additionally, it specifies these researchers must agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible to the public and to other researchers. This act incorporates key findings of a report, Fossils on Federal Land and Indian Lands, issued by the Secretary of the Interior in 2000, that establishes that most vertebrate fossils and some invertebrate and plant fossils are considered rare resources.1 In passing the PRPA, Congress officially recognized the scientific importance of paleontological resources on some federal lands by declaring that fossils from these lands are federal property that must be preserved and protected. The PRPA codifies existing policies of the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and provides the following:
1 United States Department of the Interior, May 2000, Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands, Report of the Secretary of the Interior,
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs_paleontology_quick%20links_Assessment%20of%20Fossil%20Managemen t%20on%20Federal%20%26%20Indian%20Lands%2C%20May%202000.pdf, accessed October 25, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-2 JANUARY 2025
 Uniform criminal and civil penalties for illegal sale and transport, and theft and vandalism of fossils from federal lands.
 Uniform minimum requirements for paleontological resource-use permit issuance (terms, conditions, and qualifications of applicants).
 Uniform definitions for “paleontological resources” and “casual collecting.”  Uniform requirements for curation of federal fossils in approved repositories.  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Antiquities Act of 1906
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433) states, in part:

That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Although there is no specific mention of natural or paleontological resources in the Act itself, or in the Act's uniform rules and regulations (Title 43 Part 3, Code of Federal Regulations [43 CFR 3]), the term “objects of antiquity” has been interpreted to include fossils by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, and other federal agencies. Permits to collect fossils on lands administered by federal agencies are authorized under this Act. However, due to the large gray areas left open to interpretation due to the imprecision of the wording, agencies are hesitant to interpret this act as governing paleontological resources.

State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy.2 The main purpose of the act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of active faults. This act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture—not other earthquake hazards such as earthquake-induced liquefaction or landslides. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps.

The maps, which are developed using existing United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map bases, are then distributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Generally, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
2 California Department of Conservation, 2024, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo, accessed October 25, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-3
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which was passed in 1990, addresses seismic hazards such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.3 Under this act, seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning. Section 2691(c) of this act states that “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” Section 2697(a) of the act states that “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a “Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement” when the property being sold lies within one or more state-mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone. California law also requires that when houses built before 1960 are sold, the seller must give the buyer a completed earthquake hazards disclosure report and a booklet titled “The Homeowners Guide to Earthquake Safety.” This publication was written and adopted by the California Seismic Safety Commission.

Soils Investigation Requirements
Requirements for soils investigations for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps, and for other specified types of structures, are in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955, and in Section 1802 of the California Building Code. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on loadbearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness.

California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 CCR Part 2, of, 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. Chapter 16 of the CBC deals with general design requirements, including, but not limited to, regulations governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Division IV). Chapters 18 and A33 address excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading. These chapters include requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut-and-fill slopes and drainage and erosion control.
3 California Department of Conservation, 2019, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/hazards/seismic-hazards-mapping-act, accessed October 25, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-4 JANUARY 2025
California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are afforded protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has set significance criteria for paleontological resources.4 Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most State regulatory agencies with paleontological laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards accept and use the professional standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 prohibits the destruction or removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
The California Penal Code Section 622.5 details the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources, whether from private or public lands.

California General Plan Law and General Plan Guidelines State law (Government Code Section 65302) requires cities to adopt a comprehensive long-term general plan that includes a safety element. The safety element is intended to provide guidance for protecting the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence; liquefaction; other seismic hazards identified by PRC Sections 2691 et. seq.; and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body. The seismic safety element must also include mapping of known seismic and geologic hazards from the California Geological Survey and a series of responsive goals, policies, and implementation programs to improve public safety.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and Section 30244
State requirements for management of paleontological resources are included in PRC Section 5097.5 and Section 30244. These statutes prohibit the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without permission of the jurisdictional agency, define the removal of paleontological sites or features as a misdemeanor, and require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological resources from developments on public (e.g., State, county, city, or district) lands. 4 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf, accessed October 25, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-5
Paleontological Assessment Standards
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has established guidelines for the identification, assessment, and mitigation of adverse impacts on nonrenewable paleontological resources. Most practicing paleontologists in the United States adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as outlined in these guidelines, which were approved through a consensus of professional paleontologists. The SVP has helped define the value of paleontological resources and, in particular, indicates that geologic units of high paleontological potential are those from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate or plant fossils have been recovered in the past (i.e., are represented in institutional collections). Only invertebrate fossils that provide new information on existing flora or fauna or on the age of a rock unit would be considered significant. Geologic units of low paleontological potential are those that are not known to have produced a substantial body of significant paleontological material. As such, the sensitivity of an area with respect to paleontological resources hinges on its geologic setting and whether significant fossils have been discovered in the area or in similar geologic units.

Regional Regulations
The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters. The San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), updated in 2021 in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000 (DMA 2000), provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these hazards. The San Carlos Jurisdictional Annex of the MJHMP provides an assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities, and a set of mitigation actions for San Carlos specifically while considering the results from the countywide effort. In the context of an MJHMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including geologic hazards.5
The MJHMP must be reviewed and approved by FEMA every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster relief funding. As part of this process, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reviews all local hazard mitigation plans in accordance with DMA 2000 regulations and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide. As part of the proposed project, the MJHMP is adopted in its entirety into the proposed Safety Element by reference.

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 4.6.3, Impact Discussion.
5 County of San Mateo, 2021, 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Volume 2, https://www.smcgov.org/media/53476/download?inline=, accessed on October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-6 JANUARY 2025
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 geology and soils as follows:
 Chapter 13.04, Sewer Connections, requires all new construction to connect to the City of San Carlos sanitary sewer system. Wastewater from new lots or parcels would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system serviced by the City.
 Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Code, of Title 15, Buildings and Construction, adopts the CBC by reference with specified modifications. Chapter 15.04 recognizes that the city is located in a seismically active area very close to the San Andreas Fault, one of the most significant earthquake fault zones in the State of California. This chapter also recognizes that there is the moderate potential for erosion and slope instability/landslides in approximately fifty percent of the city and that expansive soils or bedrock varies in significance in over two-thirds of the entire city. The city limit and Sphere of Influence (SOI) are in CBC Seismic Zone 4, as is about 45 percent of the State of California; consequently, construction within San Carlos would be required to meet the most stringent building code standards. Seismic zone designations range from zone 0 to zone 4. The ascending numbers indicate the respective increase in the required factor of safety applied to structural design equations for resisting earthquake-induced ground accelerations.  Chapter 12.08, Grading and Excavations, of Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places, provides the minimum standards to protect property, preserve natural beauty and enhance water quality, and control erosion, sedimentation, increases in surface runoff and related environmental damage caused by construction-related activities, by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use, location and maintenance of grading, excavating and fill, land disturbances, land fill and soil storage in connection with the clearing and grading of land for construction, within the city.
 Chapter 17.36, Improvements, explains that sanitary sewer facilities connecting with the existing City sewer system shall be installed to serve each lot and to grades, location, design and sizes approved by the City Engineer.
 Chapter 18.12, Hillside (H) Overlay District. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City by establishing regulations for managing the development of hillside areas. The chapter includes measures to minimize hazards due to soil erosion associated with development on hillsides.

For a complete discussion on soil erosion prevention as it relates to water quality, see Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR.

San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan
The City Council adopted the City of San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in March 2022. The EOP establishes the emergency management structure utilized for prevention, protection, response, and recovery of emergencies affecting the city; the operational concepts and procedures associated with 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-7
day-to-day field response to emergencies by City departments; and the policies and procedures for the San Carlos Emergency Center activities. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures utilized to protect the health and safety of residents, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural, technological, and man-made emergencies and disasters, as well as defines the procedures for a disaster recovery process.

San Calros Soils Hazard Zones
The City of San Carlos has two Soil Hazard Areas: Zone A and Zone B. Zone A is generally located in the flat lying topographic areas and Zone B is located in the hillier areas of San Carlos. Each Soil Hazard Area can determine how foundations are designed and, depending on the type of project, if a geotechnical investigation report is required. If a geotechnical investigation report is required, a foundation plan review letter is required to be submitted to the City prior to permit issuance. If a project is occurring in Hazard Zone B, an engineering geologic investigation/report may be required by the City geologist.6,7

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
The City of San Carlos is located in northeastern San Mateo County, along the San Francisco Bay. The topography of the EIR Study Area includes moderate to steep slopes in the western neighborhoods and open space areas, sloping down to the eastern portion of the EIR Study Area near the San Francisco Bay.

The geology within the EIR Study Area is mainly unconsolidated sedimentary deposits underlain by sedimentary rock and Franciscan bedrock west of Alameda de las Pulgas. The western border area of the city and its western SOI is underlain by the Cretaceous age Franciscan Complex consisting mainly of greywacke sandstone, conglomerate and shale bedrock.8,9,10,11 Conglomerate, sandstone, and mudstone of the Santa Clara formation underlie the transitional alluvial zone between the western hills and flatland deposits. The lowland deposits, which underlie most of San Carlos, consist mostly of the deposits of Holocene age alluvium (less than 11,000 years old) consisting of a mix of clay, silt, sand and gravel. Some older Pleistocene age deposits are also present, but with similar 6 City of San Carlos, Soils Report for Hazard Zone B, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/sancarlos/Document%20Center/ City%20Hall/Departments%20And%20Divisions/Community%20Development/Building/Building%20Permits/Forms%20And%20 Handouts/Applications%20Forms%20and%20Checklists/Soils%20Report%20Information%20fB.pdf, accessed on December 5, 2024.
7 City of San Carlos, Soils Reports for Hazard Zone A, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/sancarlos/Document%20Center/ Soils%20Report%20Information%20f.pdf, accessed on December 5, 2024. 8 Oakeshott, G.B., California’s Changing Landscapes, A Guide to the Geology of the State, 2nd edition, 1978. 9 United States Geological Survey, Montara Mountain (1980), Palo Alto (1973), San Mateo (1980), and Woodside (1973), Quadrangles, California, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), scale 1:24,000. 10 Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin, Geologic Map of the San Francisco - San Jose Quadrangle - Map No. 5A (Geology), Regional Geologic Map Series, California Geological Survey (formerly the Division of Mines and Geology), Sacramento, California, 1990, 5 sheets, scale 1:250,000. 11 Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones, Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, California: A Digital Database, United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-137, 1998. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-8 JANUARY 2025
compositions. The alluvium is several tens of feet to hundreds of feet thick at the Bay margins to the northeast.12 The more recent flatland deposits overlie Franciscan shale, sandstone and conglomerate, which are exposed in the western foothills and form the core bedrock of the Coast Ranges on the San Francisco Peninsula.13
Faults
The Bay Area is in one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Each year, low and moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring in or near the Bay Area are felt by residents of San Carlos.

San Carlos is closest to the active San Andreas Fault System, which is located about 1 mile west of the western border of the city.14
When earthquake faults within the San Francisco Bay Area’s nine-county area were considered, the USGS estimated that the probability of a magnitude (M) 6.7 or greater earthquake prior to year 2044 is 72 percent, or nearly a three-quarters probability. The forecast probability for each individual fault to produce an M 6.7 or greater seismic event by the year 2044 is 32 percent for the Hayward Fault, 33 percent for the San Andreas Fault, and 25 percent for the Calaveras Fault.15 Earthquakes of this magnitude can create ground accelerations severe enough to cause major damage to structures and foundations not designed to resist earthquakes. Underground utility lines are also susceptible where they lack sufficient flexibility to accommodate the seismic ground motion.16 According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in the event of an M 7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, the seismic forecasts suggest that most parts of the EIR Study Area are expected to experience “violent” shaking.17 The April 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, estimated between M 7.7 and M 8.3, was the largest seismic event in recent history that affected the EIR Study Area. More recently, the M 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989 on the San Andreas Fault caused significant damage throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, although no deaths were reported in San Mateo County.

The EIR Study Area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and there is no evidence that a fault trace exists beneath the area.
18 12 Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones, Geology of the onshore part of San Mateo County, California: A digital database, United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-137, 1998. 13 City of San Carlos, 2009, Draft 2030 General Plan EIR. 14 United States Geological Survey, Montara Mountain (1980), Palo Alto (1973), San Mateo (1980), and Woodside (1973), Quadrangles, California, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), scale 1:24,000. 15 United States Geological Survey, 2015, Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 3: A New Earthquake Forecast for California’s Complex Fault System, Fact Sheet 2015-3009. 16 Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995, The San Francisco Bay Area On Shaky Ground, Publication Number P95001EQK, 13 maps, scale 1:1,000,000.
17 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2024, MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, Earthquake Shaking Scenarios, https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8, accessed November 1, 2024.
18 California Department of Conservation, updated September 23, 2021, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed November 7, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-9
Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where moist, fine-grained, cohesionless sediment or fill materials are subjected to strong, seismically induced ground shaking. Under certain circumstances, the ground shaking can temporarily transform an otherwise solid material to a fluid state, which can result in the horizontal movement of soils on gentle slopes, called lateral spreading. Liquefaction is a serious hazard and may result in buildings that subside and suffer major structural damage. Liquefaction is most often triggered by seismic shaking, but it can also be caused by improper grading, landslides, or other factors.

In dry soils, seismic shaking may cause soil to consolidate rather than flow, a process known as densification.

Liquefaction potential within the EIR Study Area range from very low to very high, in the western hill areas to the flatlands and bay margins, respectively.19 Areas of loose, saturated, granular soils with little clay content that are susceptible to liquefaction do exist in San Carlos, particularly in the low-lying area of fill that fronts the Bay.20 Generally, for the low-lying areas within the mapped 100- or 500-year floodplain, site-specific analyses of liquefaction potential should be completed before any major development.

Landslides and Slope Instability
Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that can include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. The rate of landslide movement can vary considerably; some move rapidly, as in a soil or rock avalanche, and others “creep,” or move slowly for long periods of time. The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on many variables, although the general characteristics that influence landslide hazards are widely acknowledged. Some of the more important contributing factors are:
 Slope Material. Loose, unconsolidated soils and soft, weak rocks are more hazardous than firm, consolidated soils or hard bedrock.
 Slope Steepness. Most landslides occur on moderate to steep slopes.  Structure and Physical Properties of Materials. This includes the orientation of layering and zones of weakness relative to slope direction.
 Water Content. Increased water content increases landslide hazard by decreasing friction and adding weight to the materials on a slope.
 Vegetation Coverage. Abundant vegetation with deep roots promotes slope stability.  Proximity to Areas of Erosion or Man-Made Cuts. Undercutting slopes can greatly increase landslide potential.
 Earthquake Ground Motions. Strong seismic ground motion can trigger landslides in marginally stable slopes or loosen slope materials, which increases the risk of future landslides. 19 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2024, MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility, https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8, accessed November 8, 2024.
20 City of San Carlos, 2009, Draft 2030 General Plan EIR. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-10 JANUARY 2025
Landslides have the potential to occur in the EIR Study Area on some of the upper hilly slopes, more commonly west of Alameda de las Pulgas.21 Landslides are not of issue in the majority of the EIR Study Area where grades are flat. Because of differences in the physical characteristics of slope materials, which markedly influence landslide potential, some superficially similar areas may differ strongly in terms of landslide hazards. A site-specific geotechnical analysis would be needed to accurately assess potential landslide hazards at any specific project location.

Erosion
Erosion occurs when the upper layers of soil are displaced by erosive agents such as water, ice, snow, air, plants, animals, or anthropogenic forces. Sandy soils on moderate slopes or clayey soils on steep slopes are susceptible to erosion when exposed to these forces. Erosion can become more frequent when established vegetation is disturbed or removed due to grading, wildfires, or other factors. New development often includes the removal and/or decompaction of soils on a site, minor grading, construction of buildings and service roadways and landscaping. Trenching, grading, and compacting associated with construction of structures, modification or relocation of underground utility lines and landscape or hardscape installation could expose areas of soil to erosion by wind or water during construction processes.

Land Subsidence
Land subsidence refers to the lowering of the ground surface due to extraction or lowering of water levels or other stored fluids within the subsurface soil pores, or due to seismic activity that can cause alluvial sediments to compact.

Land subsidence occurred within the low-lying areas of the city, mainly along the Bay margins. The EIR Study Area has minimal area of potential soil subsidence at the eastern end of the EIR Study Area. 22 Underlying soils along the shoreline in the eastern part of the city, are at risk of subsidence due to potential sea level rise which could lead to increased saturation of the location’s soils. Areas of potential concern include shoreline roads such as US Highway 101, and infrastructure located beneath these roads.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrinkswell phenomena can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can exhibit wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have 21 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2024, MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, Landslide Hazard (Rainfall Induced), https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8, accessed November 8, 2024.
22 United States Geological Survey, 2024, Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-11
the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils.

Expansive soils are typically very fine grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay. Linear extensibility soil tests are often used to identify expansive soils, wherein soil sample volume/length changes in response to reduced moisture content.23 Expansive soils occur mainly in the east with some low shrink-swell soil in the western parts of the city.

Expansive soils are typically identified during project review stages prior to construction and require specific engineering methods to reduce stresses to buildings and infrastructure. A geotechnical investigation generally provides the most reliable means of evaluating and mitigating such soil characteristics.

Expansive soils are present in the EIR Study Area, specifically in the western portion and in the SOI in the Pulgas Ridge Area.24 However, these areas mapped are classed as “low” and would not pose a significant hazard to any projects proposed in those areas.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources (fossils) are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood are found in the geologic deposits (rock formations) in which they were originally buried. Paleontological resources represent a limited, non-renewable, sensitive scientific and educational resource. The potential for fossil remains at a location can be predicted through previous correlations established between the fossil occurrence and the geologic formations where they were buried. For this reason, geologic knowledge of a particular area and the paleontological resource sensitivity of particular rock formations make it possible to predict where fossils will or will not be encountered.

4.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant geology and soils impact if it would:

GEO-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42);
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides.
23 Army Corps of Engineers Field Manual TM 5-818-7, 1985, https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/tm5_818_7.pdf, accessed November 1, 2024. 24 City of San Carlos, 2030 San Carlos General Plan, Figure 8-7. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-12 JANUARY 2025
GEO-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

GEO-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

GEO-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

GEO-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

GEO-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

GEO-7 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative geology and soil impacts in the area.

4.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
GEO-1 The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides.

Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones
Proposed development within the planning area would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. The EIR Study Area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and there is no evidence that a fault trace exists beneath.

The EIR Study Area is located approximately 1 mile from the San Andreas fault; the closest known active fault. Therefore fault-line surface rupture is not considered a direct hazard. Additionally, there is no evidence of any other fault traces within the EIR Study Area.

Nevertheless, the 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 geology and soils, including fault rupture. The following General Plan goal and policy would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to earthquake fault rupture:
 Goal ESPS-1: Reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to seismic and geologic hazards.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-13
 Policy ESPS-1.4: Enforce requirements of the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act should any fault traces in San Carlos be discovered and prove to be active or potentially active.

Seismic Ground Shaking
The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends on several factors, primarily on the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the epicenter, and the characteristics of the soils or bedrock units underlying the site. The San Gregorio, Hayward, and San Andreas Faults, which are closest to the EIR Study Area, are potentially capable of producing the most intense ground accelerations in the EIR Study Area due to their proximity. Secondary effects of earthquakes are nontectonic processes such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching, which can lead to ground deformation. Ground deformation, including fissures, settlement, displacement, and loss of bearing strength, are the leading causes of damage to structures during a moderate to large earthquake.

Development within the EIR Study Area may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, from strong seismic ground shaking. Conformance with the CBC would reduce impacts to new development associated with strong seismically induced ground shaking to the maximum extent practicable, under currently accepted engineering practices. The CBC sets forth structural design parameters for buildings to withstand seismic shaking without substantial structural damage. Section 1803 of the CBC requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation to assess the degree of potential seismic hazards and recommend appropriate design/mitigation measures. The 2022 CBC contains standards and regulations relating to seismic safety and construction standards for building foundations. Conformance with the CBC, as required by State law, would minimize the potential for damage of new structures and their foundations.

Areas east of Alameda de las Pulgas could respond poorly to strong seismic shaking due to the area being mostly underlain by artificial fill and Bay mud. Because the EIR Study Area is near the San Andreas fault zone, special seismic design would be required, pursuant the CBC. If the City’s building inspector indicated additional investigations are necessary to assess soil, the City has the option to impose those recommendations as conditions of project approval. Project designs are required to include the application of CBC Seismic Zone 4 standards, including the required Near-Source Factors for Seismic Source Type A, as the minimum seismic-resistant design. Some seismic design variation exists in the Code, depending on whether they are considered to be sensitive uses.

The 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 geology and soils, including seismic ground shaking. The following General Plan goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts from ground failure:
 Goal ESPS-1: Reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to seismic and geologic hazards.
 Policy ESPS-1.1: The City Building Official shall verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist. These reports shall address the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and appropriate 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-14 JANUARY 2025
mitigation measures. Based on the findings of these reports, the City shall require that new structures are designed and built to withstand the effects of seismically-induced ground failure.  Policy ESPS-1.2: Prohibit structural development in known areas where seismic and geological hazards cannot be mitigated.
 Policy ESPS-1.3: Continue to monitor and enforce mitigation measures to reduce risk for projects where geological and seismic hazards can be mitigated.
 Policy ESPS-1.5: Continue to incorporate seismic risk analysis into the City's ongoing building inspection program through thorough review of projects by plan check and field inspections.  Policy ESPS-1.6: Continue to encourage retrofitting of structures, particularly older buildings, to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides, consistent with state Building Codes and Historic Building Codes.
 Policy ESPS-1.7: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decisionmaking, site design, and construction standards.  Policy ESPS-1.8: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on seismic and geotechnical hazards.
 Policy ESPS-1.9: Continue to ensure that seismic hazards are mitigated to the greatest extent possible for critical public facilities, infrastructure, and emergency services.  Action ESPS-1.1: Continue to review the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Uniform Building Code to ensure that geotechnical data and information relating to seismic hazards is current and accurate.
 Action ESPS-1.2: Continue to enforce the City of San Carlos Unreinforced Masonry Seismic Retrofit Program ordinance for any existing unreinforced masonry structures that may exist within the city.
 Action ESPS-1.3: Provide opportunity for voluntary retrofit of existing residential buildings by implementing the Standard Plan Set for Residential Seismic Retrofitting as adopted by ABAG.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction potential in the EIR Study Area ranges from very low to very high. Specific locations with very high liquefaction potential occur in the flatlands and bay margins of the city, generally to the northeast, with high liquefaction potential occurring along Devonshire Boulevard and San Carlos Avenue.

As previously discussed, the 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 geology and soils, including liquefaction. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions identified above would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to ground failure.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-15
Landslides
Landslides are downward and outward movements of slope forming materials such as rock, soil and/or artificial fill. The general characteristics that influence landslide hazards include slope material, slope steepness, water content, vegetation coverage and proximity to areas of erosion or man-made cuts.

Landslides occur on some of the upper hilly slopes, more commonly in the western area of the city.

Landslide Hazard areas are consistently moderate to high in the western half of the EIR Study Area.

Stringent City grading and building codes and slope landscaping requirements are in place to address landslide potential. Soils studies and remediation for any problem are required prior to issuance of a permit. Additionally, the 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 geology and soils, including landslides. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions identified above would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to landslides.

Summary
In northern California, there is no method to completely avoid earthquake hazards. However, appropriate measures to minimize the effects of earthquakes are included in the CBC, with specific provisions for seismic design. The design of structures in accordance with the CBC would minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible, except for during a catastrophic seismic event.

Additionally, future development would be required to comply with SCMC requirements for geotechnical reports on a project-by-project basis. Because future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and the SCMC, as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions, implementation of the proposed project would not cause or worsen seismic ground shaking; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-2 The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction of future development could undermine structures or minor slopes, which would be a concern during implementation of the proposed project. New development often includes the removal and/or decompaction of soils on a site, minor grading, construction of buildings and service roadways and landscaping. Trenching, grading, and compacting associated with construction of structures, modification or relocation of underground utility lines and landscape or hardscape installation could expose areas of soil to erosion by wind or water during construction processes. Disturbed soils are more prone to erosion when left exposed during winter, early spring and summer storm events (periods of high precipitation, runoff, and winds).

Erosion control plans, specific to projects in the EIR Study Area, would be prepared as necessary to determine soil conditions and to identify management practices to reduce soil erosion. Erosion control plans would include activities such as the following:
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-16 JANUARY 2025
 Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to designated rights-of-way, material yards, and access roads.
 Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction.
 Where vegetation removal is necessary, use cutting/mowing methods instead of blading, wherever possible.
 Slope and berm graded material, where possible, to reduce surface water flows across the graded area.
 Use detention basins, certified weed-free straw bales, or silt fences, where appropriate.  Use drainage control structures, where necessary, to direct surface drainage away from disturbance areas and to minimize runoff and sediment deposition downslope from all disturbed areas. These structures could include culverts, ditches, water bars (berms and cross ditches), and sediment traps.

Additionally, the use of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices for temporary erosion control for sites disturbing one or more acres, would reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of a SWPPP for proposed projects to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. The SWPPP must include an erosion control plan that prescribes measures, such as phasing grading, limiting areas of disturbance, designating restricted-entry zones, diverting runoff from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet protection, and provisions for revegetation or mulching.

Furthermore, because future development is anticipated to occur as infill or redevelopment in urban areas, development is not likely to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Adherence to existing regulatory requirements that include, but are not limited to, the CBC and the SCMC, would ensure that impacts associated with substantial erosion and loss of topsoil from future development would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-3 The proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Unstable geologic units are known to be present within the EIR Study Area. As previously discussed, landslides have historically occurred and could continue to occur in areas with steeper slopes and less stable soil types. These include areas with steep slopes on the western half of the EIR Study Area and hilly areas of the EIR Study Area. Additionally, liquefaction potential is mapped where the eastern half of the EIR Study Area has ranging medium to very high liquefaction potential. No known fault traces are located within the EIR Study Area and would not result in lateral spreading as a result of fault rupture. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-17
The EIR Study Area has minimal area of potential soil subsidence at the eastern end of the EIR Study Area.

Due to the built-out nature of the EIR Study Area, future development would occur in previously developed areas. These development projects would be required to comply with the CBC, which provides regulations for building design and construction to ensure geologic and soil stability. In addition to protections afforded by State laws, the 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 geology and soils, including geologic stability. The General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified impact discussion GEO-1 would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to development on unstable soils or geologic units.

Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be required to comply with State and local regulations, including the SCMC and General Plan goal, policies, and actions that minimize impacts related to unstable geologic units and soils where landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse could occur in the EIR Study Area. General Plan goal, policies, and actions would also require ongoing review, identification, and maintenance of maps and regulations related to geologic and seismic hazards. Therefore, implementation of proposed project would not result in development on a geologic unit or on soils that are unstable and could result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-4 The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Expansive soils are present in the EIR Study Area, specifically in the western portion and in the SOI in the Pulgas Ridge Area. However, these areas mapped are classed as “low” and would not pose a significant hazard to any projects proposed in those areas.

The 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 geology and soils, including geologic stability. The General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified impact discussion GEO-1 would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to development on expansive soil.

Future development within the buildout horizon the proposed project would be required to comply with existing regulations adopted to minimize development on expansive soils in the EIR Study Area. Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would also comply with the General Plan goal, policies, and actions that require ongoing review, identification, and maintenance of maps and regulations related to geologic and seismic hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-18 JANUARY 2025
GEO-5 The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

As discussed in Section 4.6.1.1, Regulatory Framework, SCMC Chapter 13.04 requires all new construction to connect to the City of San Carlos sanitary sewer system. Wastewater from new lots or parcels would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system serviced by the City. SCMC Chapter 17.36 also requires sanitary sewer facilities connecting with the existing City sewer system be installed to serve each lot and to grades, location, design, and sizes approved by the City Engineer.

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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-6 The proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

The geology and soils in the EIR Study Area are common throughout the city and region and are not considered to be unique. However, geological formations underlying the EIR Study Area have the potential to contain unique paleontological resources.

Future development would be required to comply with the federal PRPA which limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency, and PRC Section 5097, which prohibits the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency.

Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) associated with future development in the EIR Study Area could uncover fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments that have not been recorded. Adherence to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's standards and protocols would ensure the protection of unique paleontological resources during construction of future development.25 Such protocols include, but are not limited to:
 Excavations within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.  Ground-disturbance work shall cease until a City-approved, qualified paleontologist determines whether the resource requires further study.
 The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995) as appropriate, evaluate the 25 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf, accessed November 5, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-19
potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
 The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find.  If is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City of San Carlos for review and approval prior to implementation.  All construction activities shall adhere to the recommendations in the excavation plan.

Compliance with the PRPA and PRC Section 5097 would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources from future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-7 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative geology and soil impacts in the area.

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. Anticipated development in the EIR Study Area would be subject to regulations pertaining to seismic safety, including the CBC and SCMC. Compliance with these requirements would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce cumulative, development-related impacts that pertain to seismic shaking, seismic-related ground failure, seismically induced landslides, soil erosion, and unstable soils. Similarly, compliance with relevant CBC and SCMC requirements would minimize the cumulative impacts associated with substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. While none of the soils in the EIR Study Area are considered to have unique geological resources, unique paleontological resources may occur. Site specific evaluation in the event that previously unknown resources are discovered during construction activities for new development or redevelopment would be required. Future development would be focused on specific sites or areas, which would be evaluated for site development constraints on a case-by-case basis and required to adhere to existing regulations as well as General Plan goals, policies, and actions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and soils and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-20 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-1

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to greenhouse (GHG) gas emissions, 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.

4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

TERMINOLOGY
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this chapter:
 Greenhouse gases (GHG). Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light, thereby retaining heat in the atmosphere and contributing to a greenhouse effect.  Global warming potential (GWP). Metric used to describe how much heat a molecule of a GHG absorbs relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) over a given period of time (20, 100, and 500 years). CO2 has a GWP of 1.
 Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). The standard unit to measure the amount of GHGs in terms of the amount of CO2 that would cause the same amount of warming. CO2e is based on the GWP ratios between the various GHGs relative to CO2.
 MTCO2e. Metric ton of CO2e.
 MMTCO2e. Million metric tons of CO2e.

GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. 1,2 1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly lightabsorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-2 JANUARY 2025
The major GHGs are briefly described below.
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (i.e., sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.  Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock, and other agricultural practices, and from the decay of organic waste in landfills and water treatment facilities.
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of applicable GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.7-1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) GWP values for methane (CH4), a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 280 MT of CO2.

TABLE 4.7-1 GHG EMISSIONS AND THEIR RELATIVE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL COMPARED TO CO2 GHGs
Fourth Assessment Report
Global Warming Potential
relative to CO2 a
Fifth Assessment Report
Global Warming Potential
Relative to CO2 a
Six Assessment Report
Global Warming Potential
Relative to CO2 a
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 1 1
Methane (CH4) b 25 28 30
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 265 273
Notes: GWP = global warming potential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published updated GWP values in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) are used by the 2022 Scoping Plan for long-term emissions forecasting. Therefore, this analysis utilizes AR5 GWP values consistent with the current Scoping Plan. a. Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2. b. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge University Press; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013, New York: Cambridge University Press; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2022, Summary for Policymakers, Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf a result of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion. However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon.

Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-3
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human activities.

The recent IPCC AR6 summarizes the latest scientific consensus on climate change. It finds that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased by 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two parts per million each year. By the 2030s, and no later than 2040, the world will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) warming.3 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants.4 In the past, gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, and other conditions. Human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.5
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict.

Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:
 Fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.
 Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.  An increase in the frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most land areas.  An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) over most areas.
 Larger areas affected by drought.
 Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
 Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis). 3 California Air Resources Board, 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024. 4 California Climate Action Team, 2006, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/8150Sunset/References/4.E.%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions/GHG.23_CalEPA%202006%2 0Report%20to%20Governor.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024. 5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York:

Cambridge University Press, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/, accessed September 24, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-4 JANUARY 2025
Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
There is at least a greater than 50 percent likelihood that global warming will reach or exceed 1.5°C in the near-term, even for the very low GHG emissions scenario. 6 Climate change is already impacting
California and will continue to affect it for the foreseeable future. For example, the average temperature in most areas of California is already 1 degree Fahrenheit (°F) higher than historical levels, and some areas have seen average increases in excess of 2°F.7 The California Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies the following climate change impacts under a business-as-usual scenario, in which no new actions are taken to curb GHG emissions:
 Annual average daily high temperatures in California are expected to rise by 2.7°F by 2040, 5.8°F by 2070, and 8.8°F by 2100 compared to observed and modeled historical conditions. These changes are statewide averages. Heat waves are projected to become longer, more intense, and more frequent.
 Warming temperatures are expected to increase soil moisture loss and lead to drier seasonal conditions. Summer dryness may become prolonged, with soil drying beginning earlier in the spring and lasting longer into the fall and winter rainy season.  High heat increases the risk of death from cardiovascular, respiratory, cerebrovascular, and other diseases.
 Droughts are likely to become more frequent and persistent.  Climate change is projected to increase the strength of the most intense precipitation and storm events affecting California.
 Mountain ranges in California are already seeing a reduction in the percentage of precipitation falling as snow. Snowpack levels are projected to decline significantly by 2100 due to reduced snowfall and faster snowmelt. California’s water storage system is designed with the expectation that snow will stay frozen for many months, and that as it melts, it will be stored in a series of reservoirs and dams, many of which are used to generate electricity. Changing waterfall patterns therefore impact both water supply and electricity supply.
 Marine layer clouds are projected to decrease, though more research is needed to better understand their sensitivity to climate change.
 Extreme wildfires (i.e., fires larger than 10,000 hectares or 24,710 acres) are expected to occur 50 percent more frequently. The maximum area burned statewide may increase 178 percent by the end of the century. Drought and reduced water supplies can increase wildfire risk.  Exposure to wildfire smoke is linked to increased incidence of respiratory illness. 6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022, Summary for Policymakers, Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_ SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024. 7 California Office of Emergency Services, 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide, https://www.caloes.ca.gov/Hazard MitigationSite/Documents/CA-Adaptation-Planning-Guide-FINAL-June-2020-Accessible.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-5
 Sea-level rise is expected to continue to increase erosion of beaches, cliffs, and bluffs.8 Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 4.7-2, Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California, and include impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy.

TABLE 4.7-2 SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS RISKS TO CALIFORNIA Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Fewer extremely cold nights
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels
Deaths due to extreme heat
Water Resources Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snowpack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea-level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower Increased energy demand
Sources: California Energy Commission, 2006, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report, CEC-500-2006-077, California Climate Change Center; California Energy Commission, 2009, The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California, CEC-500-2008-0077; California Climate Change Center, 2012, Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California; California Natural Resources Agency, 2016, Safeguarding California:

Implementation Action Plans; California Office of Emergency Services, June 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide. 8 California Office of Emergency Services, 2020, California Adaptation Planning Guide, https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/CA-Adaptation-Planning-Guide-FINAL-June-2020-Accessible.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-6 JANUARY 2025

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not impose any emission reduction requirements but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.9
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding identified emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, according to guidance by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.

Endangerment Finding
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The USEPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not impose any emission reduction requirements but allowed the USEPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.10
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, the USEPA was required to issue an endangerment finding.11 The finding identified emissions of six key GHGs—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—that have been the subject 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html, accessed September 24, 2024.
10 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment: Science Overwhelmingly Shows Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Unprecedented Levels due to Human Activity, https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html, accessed September 24, 2024.
11 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, USEPA: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-causeor-contribute -findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a, accessed September 24, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-7
of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the proposed project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, according to guidance by BAAQMD, are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.

Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHGs (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the USEPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (e.g., large stationary sources) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more of CO2e per year are required to submit an annual report.

CAFE Standards (2017 to 2026)
The federal government issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for vehicle model years 2017 to 2025, requiring a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2025.

However, on March 30, 2020, the USEPA finalized updated CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks, covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 to 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE requires a fleet average of 40.4 mpg for model year 2026 vehicles.12
On December 21, 2021, under the direction of Executive Order (EO) 13990 issued by President Biden, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) repealed SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One, which had preempted state and local laws related to fuel economy standards. In addition, the NHTSA announced new proposed fuel standards on March 31, 2022. Fuel efficiency under the new standards proposed will increase 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 mpg for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which would be a 10-mpg increase relative to model year 2021.13 On June 7, 2024, NHTSA announced final CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks built in model years 2027-2031 and final fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans built in model years 2030-2035. The final rules establish standards that would require an industry fleet-wide average of approximately 50.4 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2031, by increasing fuel economy by 2 percent year over year for passenger cars (model years 2027-2031) and for light trucks (model years 2029-2031). For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the final rule would increase fuel efficiency at a rate of 10 percent per year (model years 2030-2032) and 8 percent per year (model years 2033-2035).14
12 85 Federal Register 24174 (April 30, 2020).
13 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model year 2024-2026, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-modelyear-2024-2026, accessed September 24, 2024. 14 NHTSA, 2024, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, NHTSA Announces Final Rule for CAFE and HDPUV Standards. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-8 JANUARY 2025
State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in EO S-03-05, EO B-30-15, EO B-55-18, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, AB 1279, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and SB 375.

Executive Order S-03-05
EO S-03-05 was signed June 1, 2005, and set the following GHG reduction targets for the State:
 2000 levels by 2010
 1990 levels by 2020
 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) AB 32 was passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in EO S-03-05. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline a plan to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets of AB 32.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted in 2008 to connect the GHG emissions reduction targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (i.e., excluding emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the Bay Area region, which includes Napa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
2017 Update to SB 375 Targets
CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology, and then released another update in February 2018, which became effective in October 2018. CARB adopted the updated targets and methodology on March 22, 2018. All Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) adopted after October 1, 2018, are subject to these new targets. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. The updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks compared to 2005.

This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of State technology and fuels strategies and any potential future State strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The updated targets call for greater per-capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than were currently in place, which for 2035 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-9
translates into updated targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted SCSs. CARB’s updated targets result in an additional reduction of over 8 MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the prior targets.15
Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, set a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. EO B-30-15 also directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the State and requires State agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in EO S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California, to ensure climate change is accounted for in State planning and investment decisions.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197 into law, making the EO goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.

Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to ensure future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other State goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.

Assembly Bill 1279 and 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan AB 1279, signed by Governor Newsom in September 2022, codifies the carbon neutrality targets of EO B55-18 for year 2045 and sets a new legislative target for year 2045 of 85 percent below 1990 levels for anthropogenic GHG emissions. CARB was required to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve the net-zero and GHG emissions-reduction goals.

CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier and to reduce the state’s 15 California Air Resources Board, 2018, Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/SB375_Updated_Final_Target_Staff_Report_2018.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-10 JANUARY 2025
anthropogenic GHG emissions.16 The Scoping Plan was updated to address the carbon neutrality goals of EO B-55-18 and the ambitious GHG reduction target as directed by AB 1279. Previous scoping plans focused on specific GHG reduction targets for industrial, energy, and transportation sectors—to meet 1990 levels by 2020, and then the more aggressive 40 percent below that for the 2030 target. This Plan expands upon earlier scoping plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Carbon neutrality takes it one step further by expanding actions to capture and store carbon, including through natural and working lands and mechanical technologies, while drastically reducing anthropogenic sources of carbon pollution at the same time.

The path forward was informed by the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6); the measures would achieve 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance AB 1279. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies, as shown in Table 4.7-3, Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans, that would be most impactful at the local level for ensuring substantial process towards the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

TABLE 4.7-3 PRIORITY STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLANS Priority Area Priority Strategies
Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and provide electric vehicle (EV) charging at public sites.

Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed State building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans).

VMT Reduction
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards.

Implement complete streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements.

Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, and other approaches.

Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking.

Implement parking pricing or TDM pricing strategies.

Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood).

Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements).

Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers).

Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances.

Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing). 16 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-11
TABLE 4.7-3 PRIORITY STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLANS Priority Area Priority Strategies
Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings).

Source: California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf.

Residential and mixed-use development projects that include the following key project attributes would accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.

This is the first approach the State recommends for qualitatively determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals while simultaneously advancing fair housing.

Key residential and mixed-use project attributes that reduce GHGs:
 Transportation Electrification
 Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.  VMT Reduction
 Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, and sewer).  Does not result in the loss or conversion of the state’s natural and working lands.  Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s SCS.
 Reduces parking requirements by:
 Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or  Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per dwelling unit; or  For multi-family residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.
 At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents.  Result in no net loss of existing affordable units.
 Building Decarbonization
 Use all electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

The second approach to project-level alignment with State climate goals is net zero GHG emissions, especially for new residential development. The third approach to demonstrating project-level alignment 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-12 JANUARY 2025
with State climate goals is to align with GHG thresholds of significance, which many local air quality management and air pollution control districts have developed or adopted.17 Transportation Sector Specific Regulations
Advanced Clean Fleets and Advanced Clean Trucks
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation in 2023 to accelerate the transition to zeroemission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. In conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, the ACF regulations help to ensure that medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) are brought to the market, by requiring certain fleets to purchase ZEVs. The ACF ZEV phase-in approach provides initial focus where the best fleet electrification opportunities exist, sets clear targets for regulated fleets to make a full conversion to ZEVs, and creates a catalyst to accelerate development of a heavy-duty public charging infrastructure network.

Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and was anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the USEPA. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rulemaking that set even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of ZEVs into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percent less GHG emissions and 75 percent less smog-forming emissions.18
Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the State set a new low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in the state. EO S-01-07 set a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS required a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applied to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and used market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose the most economically feasible methods for reducing emissions during the “fuel cycle.”
17 California Air Resources Board, 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024. 18 California Air Resources Board, 2017, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2020-01/ACC%20MTR%20Summary_Ac.pdf, accessed September 18, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-13
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the State directed CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate ZEVs in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle [EV] charging stations). EO B-16- 2012 also directed the number of ZEVs in California’s State vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles have zero emissions (ZE) by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The EO also established a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Governor Newsom signed EO N-79-20, establishing a goal that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be ZE by 2035. Additionally, the fleet goals for trucks are that 100 percent of drayage trucks are ZE by 2035, and 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state are ZE by 2045, where feasible. The EO’s goal for the State is to transition to 100 percent ZE off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible.

Renewables Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and X1-2 and Executive Order S-14-08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the RPS established under SBs 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. EO S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production decreases indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.

Senate Bill 350
SB 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and retail sellers consists of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill establishes an overall State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-14 JANUARY 2025
resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. SB 1020 provides interim RPS targets (90 percent renewable energy by 2035 and 95 percent renewable energy by 2040) and requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to reach 100 percent clean electricity by 2045.

Energy Efficiency Regulations
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards on August 11, 2021, and they went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electricready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation standards, among other approaches. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the new standards include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high-rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers. The 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted in September 2024 and will become effective on January 1, 2026. The Building Energy and Efficiency Standards and CALGreen undergo a triennial update with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and nonresidential buildings by 2030.

California Building Code: CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.19 The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022.

The 2022 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2023. 19 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the Code. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-15
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.

The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

Solid Waste Diversion Regulations
Assembly Bill 939: Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multi-family residential land uses.

Section 5.408 of CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The Act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.

Assembly Bill 1826
In October 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that, on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multi-family residential dwellings with five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-16 JANUARY 2025
Water Efficiency Regulations
Senate Bill X7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to SB 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements, which DWR did through the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 required urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.

Assembly Bill 1881: Water Conservation in Landscaping Act The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or an equivalent. AB 1881 also requires CEC to consult with DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves, to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and methane. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during the incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 required CARB, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the State’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of shortlived climate pollutants. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.20 In-use on-road rules were expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.
20 California Air Resources Board, 2024, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ shortlived/shortlived.htm, accessed September 24, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-17
Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live within one half mile of frequent transit by 2050, with this share increasing to over 70 percent for households with low incomes. Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the State mandate of a 19-percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035 — but only if all strategies are implemented.

To achieve this sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. Parts of the EIR Study Area lies within the Railroad Corridor PDA.21
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG 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:
 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 comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been 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 21 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, January 2024 (updated), Priority Development Areas, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/5572ccb7bfe2426eae086c35931f1d0e_0/explore?location=

37.503733%2C-122.264927%2C14.44, accessed September 24, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-18 JANUARY 2025
matter, toxic air contaminants, 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. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following 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 (i.e., 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.

City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County is responsible for providing countywide transportation planning. In San Mateo County, C/CAG is the Congestion Management Agency tasked with preparing the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) that describes the strategies to address congestion problems and monitoring compliance. C/CAG works cooperatively with MTC, transit agencies, local governments, Caltrans and BAAQMD. C/CAG’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2023 San Mateo County CMP Update adopted October 2023.22 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.

Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under BAAQMD Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the BAAQMD are required to register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with BAAQMD and MTC, the Rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four commuter benefit options, including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-provided transit, and alternative commute benefit.
22 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-19
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 4.7.3, 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 GHG emissions as follows:
 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 to reduce solid waste generated in their jurisdictions.  Chapter 15.20, Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations while promoting public health and safety on the installation and use of such charging stations.
 Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems, allows for an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 to achieve time ly and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems.
 Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, adopts the Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code (2022 Edition) and Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen. Within this code, certain regulations are outlined about electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and how Electric vehicle supply equipment shall be installed in accordance with the CALGreen. Additionally, this code amends CALGreen Chapter 4, Residential Mandatory Measures, and Chapter 5, Nonresidential Mandatory Measures, to require all-electric buildings for new construction and qualifying alteration projects.23 If either of these criteria are met within a three-year period, measured from the date of the most recent previously obtained permit final date, the project shall be subject to the all-electric buildings requirements. Exceptions include:
 All residential buildings except Multi-Unit Residential buildings as defined by SCMC Section

18.40.020 may contain non-electric indoor and outdoor Cooking Appliances and indoor and outdoor Fireplaces.
23 Alterations that include replacement or addition of over 50 percent of the existing foundation for purposes other than a repair or reinforcement as defined in California Existing Building Code Section 202; or where over 50 percent of the existing framing above the sill plate is removed or replaced for purposes other than repair, shall be all-electric buildings. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-20 JANUARY 2025
 If an applicant establishes by substantial evidence that an All-Electric Building is infeasible for the project due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances particular to the project, then the Building Official may grant a modification. The design professional shall submit findings demonstrating a unique reason that makes the technical code impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the technical code, the modification shall be as narrow as possible so as to effectuate as much of a reduction in natural gas as possible, and that such modification does not lessen health, life safety, and fire safety requirements or any degree of structural integrity. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2.
 If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2.
 Laboratory areas with Non-Residential Buildings may contain non-electric Space Conditioning Systems. To take advantage of this exception, an applicant shall provide third party verification that the All-Electric space heating requirement is not cost effective and feasible. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section

5.106.1.3.2.
 Non-residential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant open to the public or an employee commercial kitchen containing cooking facilities with the purpose of preparing and serving food for employees and visitors may apply to the Building Official for a modification to install gasfueled cooking appliances. This exception does not apply to typical employee breakrooms or other self-service kitchens. This request must be based on a business-related reason to cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source  If an applicant establishes by substantial evidence that an All-Electric Building is infeasible for the project due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances particular to the project, then the Building Official may grant a modification. The design professional shall submit findings demonstrating a unique reason that makes the technical code impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the technical code, the modification shall be as narrow as possible so as to effectuate as much of a reduction in natural gas as possible, and that such modification does not lessen health, life safety, and fire safety requirements or any degree of structural integrity. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2.
 If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-21
 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 18.25, 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.
24 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 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
Community Emissions
Land uses in the EIR Study Area generate GHG emissions from natural gas used for energy, heating, and cooking; electricity usage; vehicle trips; and area sources such as landscaping and consumer cleaning products. Emissions associated with the EIR Study Area are shown in Table 4.7-4, Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory in the EIR Study Area.

TABLE 4.7-4 EXISTING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Existing MTCO2e
Emissions Sector City + SOI % of Total
On-Road Transportation 87,892 12%
Electricity 16,359 5%
Natural Gas 43,761 12%
24 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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-22 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.7-4 EXISTING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Solid Waste/Landfills 9,065 3%
Water and Wastewater 1,007 <1%
Off-road Equipment 337,348 66%
Refrigerants 14,865 3%
Total Community Emissions 510,296 100%
Service Population (SP) 51,610 --
MTCO2e/SP 9.9 --
Notes: All numbers are rounded. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows. Because the full extent of implementation of Chapter 15.04 of the San Carlos Municipal Code is unknown, all-electric designs were not accounted for in the emissions estimates herein. SOI = sphere of influence.

Source: Based on the emissions inventory and forecast being conducted for the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy Plan, 2024. See Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Draft EIR.

The existing land uses in San Carlos consist of single-family and multi-family residences, office, commercial, industrial, airport, public and quasi-public, and parks and open space uses. Operation of these land uses generates GHG emissions from natural gas used for energy, heating, and cooking; electricity usage; vehicle trips for employees and residents; area sources such as landscaping and agricultural equipment and consumer cleaning products; water demand; waste generation; and solid waste generation.25

4.7.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant greenhouse gas emissions impact if it would:

GHG-1 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions.

GHG-3 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative GHG emission impacts in the area.

BAAQMD’s CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022) contains instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate GHG impacts generated from land use development projects and plans. For the purposes of this analysis, the City of San Carlos is using BAAQMD’s current GHG plan-level significance thresholds to evaluate the proposed project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.
25 Emissions from water demand and wastewater are emissions associated with electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-23

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IMPACTS
BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (GHG Justification Report) contains instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate GHG impacts generated from land use development projects and plans. If a proposed plan cannot demonstrate consistency with the BAAQMD-recommended Criterion A or Criterion B, that plan would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.

A. The proposed plan must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b); or B. The proposed plan must meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.

The City’s current CMAP stands as the City’s local reduction strategy; however, the City’s current CMAP does not demonstrate consistency with the latest legislative reduction target established by AB 1279 and cannot be used for a streamlined GHG analysis (Criterion A). To provide a conservative analysis of the proposed project’s impacts in relation to carbon neutrality goals of AB 1279, the City has identified a “no net increase” threshold of zero (0 MTCO2e) for determining whether the proposed project could generate GHG emissions that would have a significance impact on the environment. Appendix D of the CARB 2022 Draft Scoping Plan recognizes that achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may be an appropriate overall objective. Therefore, the nonet-increase threshold is consistent with the State’s carbon neutrality goals under AB 1279 and provides the most conservative threshold for GHG emissions impacts under CEQA for the proposed project.

GREENHOUSE GAS PLAN CONSISTENCY
To determine whether the proposed project is consistent with the applicable plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis evaluates the proposed project for consistency with applicable policies contained in the City’s CMAP, the State’s Scoping Plan, and Plan Bay Area.

4.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
Methodology
Emissions Quantification
This GHG evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant GHG impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the proposed project. The EIR Study Area’s GHG emissions inventory includes the following sectors:
 Building Energy. Emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the EIR Study Area were modeled based on data provided by PGE and PCE respectively, for years 2019 through 2023. Due to the 15/15 Rule, electricity use data for industrial land uses was aggregated with the nonresidential land uses in the data provided by PG&E 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-24 JANUARY 2025
and PCE where available.
26 Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population for residential electricity and natural gas use and non-residential square footage for non-residential electricity and natural gas use in the EIR Study Area. Carbon intensity for years 2024 and 2045 are based on the carbon intensity for PG&E and PCE identified in the 2022 CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix G and as provided by PCE.
27  Transportation. Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using emissions data from CARB’s EMFAC2021 V1.0.2 web database. Model runs were based on internal and external origindestination (O-D) VMT data provided by Kittelson and Associates (see Appendix D, Transportation Data, of this Draft EIR) for calendar year 2024 (existing) and 2045 emission rates. The VMT is based on O-D using the San Mateo County Transportation Model and includes the full trip length for land uses in the city and a 50 percent reduction in the trip length for external-internal/internal-external trips based on the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee under SB 375.28 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 home-based trips, work commute trips, recreational trips, and school-related trips.
 Off-Road Equipment. OFFROAD2021, version 1.0.7., is a web database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by CARB. OFFROAD was used to estimate GHG emissions from lawn and garden, light commercial/industrial equipment, and construction equipment in the EIR Study Area. EIR Study Area emissions from lawn and garden equipment is based on the percentage of housing units in the city and sphere of influence (SOI) compared to San Mateo County and forecasted for each based on growth of housing units. EIR Study Area emissions attributable to light commercial/industrial equipment is estimated based on employment for the city and SOI as a percentage of San Mateo County and forecasted for each based on growth of employment. Construction equipment use is estimated based on housing permit data for the city and SOI compared to San Mateo County and assumes that construction emissions for the forecast year for each would be similar to historical levels.
26 The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. The 15/15 rule requires that any aggregated information provided by a utility must be made up of at least 15 customers, and a single customer’s load must be less than 15 percent of an assigned category. If the number of customers in the compiled data is below 15, or if a single customer’s load is more than 15 percent of the total data, categories must be combined before the information is released. The Rule further requires that if the 15/15 Rule is triggered for a second time after the data have been screened once already using the 15/15 Rule, the customer be dropped from the information provided.
27 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2022, California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, 2022. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide. Accessed October 31, 2024. 28 For accounting purposes, there are two types of trips:

Internal origin-destination (O-D) VMT: Vehicle miles traveled associated with vehicle trips that both originate and terminate within the city limit.

External O-D VMT: Vehicle miles traveled associated with vehicle trips that either originate or terminate (but not both) within the city limit.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-25
 Refrigerant Leakage. Refrigerants are based on the statewide 2021 refrigerant use and statewide population based on the 2021 census data to derive emissions per person. Emissions from this sector are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) because the inventory is not available with AR5 GWPs.  Solid Waste Disposal. GHG emissions from solid waste disposed of by residents and employees in the EIR Study Area were quantified based on the waste-in-place method. This method assumes that the degradable organic component in waste decays slowly throughout a few decades, during which CH4 and biogenic CO2 are formed. If conditions are constant, the rate of CH4 production depends solely on the amount of carbon remaining in the waste. As a result, emissions of CH4 from waste deposited in a disposal site are highest in the first few years, then gradually decline. Significant CH4 production typically begins one or two years after waste disposal in a landfill and continues for 10 to 60 years or longer. Waste disposal in the city was averaged over several years to account for fluctuations in average annual solid waste disposal. Waste generated was based on data obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to provide an estimate of GHG emissions for existing conditions (2024) for the City.

GHG emissions from solid waste disposal in the baseline year were modeled using CARB’s Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.9, which includes waste characterization data from CalRecycle. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), version 1.1.

Because the landfill gas captured is not under the jurisdiction of San Carlos, the landfill gas emissions from the capture system are not included in the inventory. Only fugitive sources of GHG emissions from landfills are included. Modeling assumes a 75-percent reduction in fugitive GHG emissions from the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System. Total GHG emissions from waste disposal in 2045 were forecasted based on the percent increase in service population for the city. The emissions forecast does not account for reductions from increasing waste diversion.

Water Use and Wastewater Treatment. GHG emissions from this sector include indirect GHG emissions from the embodied energy associated with water use and wastewater generation and fugitive GHG emissions from processing wastewater. The total annual existing and proposed project water demand and wastewater generation in the City are based on the City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Existing residential and nonresidential water and wastewater demands based on proportion of net new water demand for each purveyor and existing demographics for EIR Study Area since the delineation of residential and non-residential uses are not known under each purveyor service area for existing conditions. Increase in water and wastewater demand based on growth in housing units and non-residential square footage. Electricity use from water use is estimated using energy rates identified by in the 2022 CalEEMod Users Guide.29 Then energy is multiplied by the carbon intensity of energy. Wastewater treatment also results in direct CH CH4 emissions from wastewater processing, which are based on the emission rates identified in the 2022 CalEEMod Users Guide.30
29 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2022, California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, 2022. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide. Accessed October 31, 2024. 30 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2022, California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, 2022. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide. Accessed October 31, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-26 JANUARY 2025
Industrial sources of emissions that require a permit from BAAQMD are not included in the community inventory. Life-cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project; and therefore, they would be speculative.31 Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because CARB does not include this pollutant in the State’s GHG emissions inventory and treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately.32 GHG-1 The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

A general plan is a long-range policy document that does not directly result in development without additional approvals. However, future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHGs in the EIR Study Area. Any development proposed in the EIR Study Area must be analyzed for consistency with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA, if required; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits from regulatory agencies. Development under the buildout horizon of the proposed project is not linked to a specific time frame but is assumed over an approximately 20-year period through 2045. For the purposes of evaluating if the proposed project would achieve State’s GHG reduction goal for year 2045 (AB 1279), forecasted GHG emissions for 2045 are considered.

As shown in Table 4.7-5, EIR Study Area GHG Emissions Forecast, the buildout projected for the proposed project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions from existing conditions; however, GHG emissions per service population (SP) would decrease. The primary reason for the increase in overall community-wide GHG emissions is the projected increase in VMT and use of offroad equipment for landscaping, commercial and light industrial activities, and construction, which are principally tied to the increase in service population through 2045 in the EIR Study Area. Due to the built-out nature of San Carlos and the presence of transit options, new development would take the form of infill and/or transitoriented development. Nevertheless, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in GHG 31 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analysis was not warranted for project-specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials is also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (Source: California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation [formerly the California Office of Planning and Research], 2008, General Plan Guidelines Chapter 8: Climate Change, https://www.lci.ca.gov/docs/opr_c8_final.pdf, accessed October 31, 2024.). 32 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 4.2, Air Quality. The majority of anthropogenic sources come from transportation—specifically, heavy-duty vehicles. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion (Source: California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed September 24, 2024.). 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-27
emissions and would not achieve the net zero threshold utilized in this analysis. As such, the proposed project would not advance the reduction in community-wide GHG emissions necessary to achieve the carbon neutrality goal by 2045. Consequently, the proposed project would not be consistent with the current long-term legislative reduction target under AB 1279.

The Land Use (LU) Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) 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 from GHG emissions. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize GHG emissions and mobile-source emissions:
 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.  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.  Policy LU-1.4: Establish and support the El Camino Real/Caltrain multi-modal TOD corridor for the purpose of the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.  Policy LU-1.5: Support land use patterns in the TOD corridor that will attract and serve riders of public transit.
 Policy LU-1.8: As San Carlos’ Climate Action Plan is updated over time, continue to include land use goals and measures in the Plan that contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  Goal LU-2: Preserve and strengthen Downtown as the civic, cultural and social heart of the city.  Policy LU-2.16: Ensure adequate accessibility to the Downtown, which may include expanding automobile parking, bicycle parking and public transit.  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 traffic-calming measures which allow people of all ages and abilities to exercise and safely access public transportation, community centers and schools and goods and services.
 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. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-28 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.7-5 EIR STUDY AREA GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST
Emissions Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Baseline (2024) Year 2045
Net Change
(2024 to 2045)
Transportation 87,892 118,138 30,246
Energy - Electricity 16,359 29,432 13,073
Energy - Natural Gas 43,761 74,930 31,169
Solid Waste (Waste Commitment) 9,065 16,470 7,405
Water and Wastewater 1,007 461 (545)
Off-road equipment 337,348 500,834 163,486
Refrigerants 14,865 22,396 7,531
Total Community Emissions 510,296 762,661 252,365
Net Zero Target Achieved? ― ― No
Service Population (SP) 51,610 93,770 42,160
MTCO2e/SP 9.9 8.1 (1.8)
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Based on global warming potential (GWP) in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).

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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-29
 Goal CSH-3: Maintain a street and highway system which accommodates future growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service.
 Action CSH-3.4: The City shall encourage City employees to utilize alternative transportation through incentive, ridesharing and guaranteed ride home programs.  Goal CSH-5: Ensure all modes of transportation connect safely and efficiently both within San Carlos and with neighboring jurisdictions.
 Policy CSH-5.3: Support an interconnected system of pedestrian ways, paths, trails, bikeways and transit routes within the city and between adjacent communities.  Goal EM-2: Promote healthy streams and riparian corridors.  Action EM-2.4: Develop a citywide policy that applies to all City properties and operations and establishes protocols to work with water service providers to determine appropriate location(s) for and implementation of a reclaimed (recycled) water distribution system (purple pipe) for landscaping and other non-potable water uses for residential, commercial and industrial consumers.
 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.
 Action EM-5.6: Evaluate potential incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation.
 Action EM-5.8: Develop a recycled water implementation plan, which would identify potential sources and uses of recycled water, environmental benefits, capital and operating costs and potential utility providers.
 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-6.6: BAAQMD recommended measures to reduce PM10 and exhaust emissions associated with construction shall be applied to new development in San Carlos.  Action EM-6.3: For use on City-operated properties, explore options for landscaping equipment which will reduce contribution of air pollution. Encourage the same options by residents and businesses.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-30 JANUARY 2025
 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.  Policy EM-7.7: Collaborate with stakeholders and volunteers in the formulation and implementation of greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
 Goal EM-9: Reduce energy consumed citywide.
 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.  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.  Goal EM-11: Promote and expand public and alternative modes of transportation.  Policy EM-11.2: Work with transit service providers to increase the frequency, reliability and quality of transit service.
 Policy EM-11.5: Evaluate and encourage a shuttle system in San Carlos to connect residential neighborhoods to commercial areas, transit and other destinations in San Carlos.  Policy EM-11.7: Support programs to reduce vehicle trips associated with transporting students to and from schools.
 Policy EM-11.8: Promote a car sharing program.
 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.
 Action EM-11.5: Encourage transit providers to utilize vehicles with low polluting technologies and to reduce or eliminate idling.
 Goal EM-12: Reduce solid waste disposal and increase recycling.  Policy EM-12.2: Minimize City government waste by expanding reduction, recycling and composting programs and practicing reuse.
 Policy EM-12.3: Encourage the public and private sectors to utilize reusable, returnable, recyclable, environmentally-friendly products and repairable goods through incentives, educational displays and activities, as well as City purchasing policies and practices. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-31
 Action EM-12.3: Require adequate facilitation of recycling in all new development and new commercial tenancies.
 Action EM-12.5: Encourage building deconstruction in lieu of demolition. Require a construction and demolition debris waste plan to maximize recycling rates.  Action EM-12.6: Encourage the use of recycled pavement and/or permeable products for public and private parking lots and driveways.
 Action EM-12.7: Support the commercial food scraps and organics recycling program.  Goal PR-4: Provide for environmentally-sustainable parks and recreational programs.  Policy PR-4.6: Use sustainable materials—reused, renewable, locally-sourced and/or recycled— to the greatest extent possible.
 Policy PR-4.12: Study the feasibility of reducing or eliminating City department use of gasolinepowered landscape maintenance equipment.

Future development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would experience emission reductions from implementation of State measures and strategies to reduce Statewide GHG emissions, such as the LCFS mandate or RPS requirements. The proposed project’s goals, and policies, listed above, would serve to further support potential GHG reductions for future development projects in the EIR Study Area. Moreover, as discussed further under impact discussion GHG-2, the City’s CMAP establishes GHG emissions targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels (equal to 49 percent below 2005 levels) by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels (or 83 percent below 2005 levels) by 2050. The CMAP includes strategies that would support the City’s 2030 and 2045 GHG emissions reductions goals; however, the CMAP demonstrates consistency with current legislative reduction targets for 2030 and not the carbon neutrality goal for 2045. Moreover, the proposed project would facilitate population growth and development beyond what was accounted for in the CMAP. As shown in Table 4.7-5, the planned development in the EIR Study Area would result in a net increase in GHG emissions from 2024 through 2045, exceeding the no-net-increase significance threshold, and would not achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Therefore, growth within the EIR Study Area associated with the proposed project could produce a cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions and this impact would be significant.

Impact 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.

Mitigation Measure 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. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-32 JANUARY 2025
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
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City prepares a CMAP update to chart a trajectory to achieve the longterm year 2045 GHG reduction goal and State's carbon neutrality goal set by AB 1279. However, given the growth in population and employment within the EIR Study Area and the magnitude of GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target, 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.

GHG-2 The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

This discussion analyzes whether the proposed project would conflict with the City’s CMAP, as well as with other applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including CARB’s Scoping Plan and MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050.

San Carlos Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
The City’s CMAP, dated September 27, 2021, stands as a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and streamline the environmental review of GHG emissions of future development projects in the city.
33 The CMAP provides community-wide emissions forecasts for 2030 and 2050, relying on growth assumptions from the California Department of Finance and ABAG. This CMAP also establishes GHG emissions targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels (equal to 49 percent below 2005 levels) by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels (or 83 percent below 2005 levels) by 2050.

The City's CMAP identifies 33 GHG reduction strategies and 8 goals to lower GHG emissions from a range of sources within the jurisdiction, including land use and transportation, energy efficiency, off-road, solid 33 City of San Carlos, 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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-33
waste, water, and wastewater. A consistency analysis with the applicable CMAP goals and strategies is shown in Table 4.7-6, Consistency Analysis with the City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan. As shown in Table 4.7-6, the proposed project would not conflict with the strategies of the CMAP such that it would obstruct its implementation.

TABLE 4.7-6 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION PLAN
Reduction Goal Applicable Strategy Consistency Analysis Goal 1: Reduce energy use
Strategy 1: Regional Energy Conservation and
Efficiency Programs. Promote available energy
efficiency and conservation opportunities,
incentives, and technical assistance for
businesses and residents.

Consistent. Future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. In SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, the code includes the City’s local amendment to the State Building Code Title 24 to require all-electric buildings for many new construction developments and the mandatory measures for EV charging infrastructure in accordance with CALGreen. Lastly, General Plan Policy EM-8.18 encourages construction of more energy efficient buildings and Policy EM-9.7 supports energy efficiency in City-owned and -operated facilities.

Strategy 3: City Facilities. Ensure energy
conservation and efficiency in City buildings
and facilities.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as the SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes. In addition, General Plan Policy EM-9.7 would implement energy efficiency in Cityowned and -operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs.

Goal 2: Transition to carbon-free energy sources
Strategy 4: Electrification. Transition to
electricity as the primary energy source
citywide.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes. Additionally, Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems, provides a streamlined solar energy system permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 for cost-effective solar energy systems installations.

Strategy 5: Building Codes. Advance
electrification through local amendments to
the California Building Code.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes.

Strategy 6: Rooftop Solar. Continue to support
and increase participation in rooftop and
onsite solar energy systems in the community
and at City facilities.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, and Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems. In addition, General Plan Policy EM-9.2 supports on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production, such as solar panels.

Goal 3: Promote energy resilience
Strategy 8: Battery Storage. Promote
installation of small-scale onsite battery
energy storage systems for existing and new
development, including City facilities.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, and Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-9.2 supports on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production, such as solar panels, wind turbines and biomass facilities.

Goal 4: Promote sustainable development that reduces vehicle miles traveled Strategy 11: Transit-Oriented Development.

Encourage development of mixed-use
Consistent. The proposed project supports a variety of housing types, including Neighborhood Retail, Neighborhood Retail/Mixed Use, and 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-34 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.7-6 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION PLAN
projects, higher-density housing, and job
growth within the General Plan’s recognized
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) corridor
(Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3) while being
mindful of surrounding uses.

Mixed-Use development to encourage better connectivity to employment and commercial uses. General Plan Policies LU-1.2 through LU-1.5 encourage a balanced land use pattern in TOD corridors to improve mobility of people and vehicles. Additionally, Policies EM-11.7, EM-11.11, and LU-2.16, would help reduce VMT per service population and support convenient access to transit within the EIR Study Area.

Strategy 12: Active Transportation. Prioritize
bicycling and walking as safe, practical, and
attractive travel options citywide, as directed
by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Consistent. As listed under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project’s policies would help minimize mobile-source emissions and promote active transportation initiatives. For example, General Plan Policies EM-11.2, EM-11.5, EM-11.11, LU-2.16, and CSH-5.3 would promote pedestrian access and public transportation, reduce vehicle congestion, and support TDM measures where feasible. Policies LU-1.2 through LU-1.5 encourage a balanced land use pattern in TOD corridors to improve mobility of people and vehicles.

Strategy 15: Public Transportation. Support
improvements to public transit routes,
services, and facilities to facilitate longer
distance travel.

Consistent. As listed under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project’s policies would help minimize mobile-source emissions and promote active transportation initiatives. For example, General Plan Policies EM-11.2, EM-11.5, EM-11.11, LU-2.16, and CSH-5.3 would promote pedestrian access and public transportation, reduce vehicle congestion, and support TDM measures where feasible.

Strategy 17: Vehicle Miles Traveled. Reduce
community-wide transportation-related
emissions per resident and employee, with an
emphasis on reductions from existing and
new development in the city’s core
commercial, office, and industrial areas,
including development on the east side.

Consistent. As listed under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project’s policies would help minimize mobile-source emissions and reduce VMT. For example, General Plan Policies EM-11.2, EM-11.5, EM-11.12, and LU-2.16, would promote pedestrian access and public transportation, reduce vehicle congestion, and support TDM measures for employees.

Future development under the proposed project would also be required to be constructed in accordance with current applicable area plans and San Mateo Citywide Transit Demand Management plan. This includes SCMC Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management, which helps promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. Future development would be subject to the TDM requirements in place at the time of permit application. The City of San Carlos recently began a process to update its TDM requirements. While these updated requirements have not yet been adopted, they are anticipated to involve more strict trip reduction requirements in comparison to the City’s current TDM requirements.

Buildout within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would decrease VMT per service population when compared to existing conditions. In addition, the proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS.

Goal 5: Transition to low-carbon transportation
Strategy 18: Electric Vehicles. Support
residents and business owners to transition to
electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Consistent. Advanced Clean Cars II would require new cars sold in 2035 and beyond to be zero-emission vehicles, which includes battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles.

Future development under the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of Advanced Clean Cars II program since this is a requirement for auto manufacturers in California.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-35
TABLE 4.7-6 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION PLAN
As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes. In addition, Chapter

15.20, Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, also promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations.

Strategy 19: Safe Routes to School. Continue
to support the Safe Routes to Schools
Program and reduction of GHG emissions
from school-related trips.

Consistent. As listed under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project’s policies would help minimize mobile-source emissions and promote safe routes to schools. For example, General Plan Policies EM11.7 and LU-3.10 would support programs to reduce vehicle trips associated with transporting students and safe, walkable environments to access schools.

Strategy 20: City Fleet. Transition the City
fleet to zero-emissions vehicles or low-carbon
fuels, as feasible.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes. In addition, General Plan Action EM-11.5, encourages transit providers to utilize vehicles with low polluting technologies.

Strategy 21: Car sharing. Promote electric
vehicle and low-carbon fuel car-sharing
programs.

Consistent. As listed under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project’s policies and actions would help minimize mobile-source emissions and promote electric vehicle infrastructure. For example, General Plan Action EM-11.5 and CSH-3.4, and Policy EM-11.8, encourages transit providers to utilize vehicles with low polluting technologies and ridesharing programs.

Goal 6: Support pollution-free outdoor equipment
Strategy 23: Clean-fuel construction and
landscaping. Encourage hybrid and clean-fuel
construction and landscaping equipment
citywide.

Consistent. As listed under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project’s policies and actions would help minimize emissions from construction activities and maintaining landscape. For example, Gneral Plan Policy EM-6.3, EM-6.6, and LU-8.18 supports reduction of PM10 and exhaust emissions from construction activities through better construction practices. Policy PR-4.12 and Action EM-6.3 encourages exploration of different landscaping equipment to reduce contribution to air pollution.

Goal 7: Become a zero-waste community
Strategy 24: Zero-Waste City. Promote zerowaste initiatives in City operations and public events.

Consistent. Future development would be required to comply with AB 939 and divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills through source reduction, recycling, and composting. SCMC Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, contains a 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 to reduce solid waste generated in their jurisdictions. In addition, General Plan Policy PR-4.6, Policy EM-12.2, and Action EM-2.4 would encourage sustainable materials to minimize City government waste and implementation of reclaimed (recycled) water distribution systems for all City properties and operations.

Strategy 25: Material reuse and repair.

Support community-led initiatives to create a
material reuse and repair program and
continue to educate community members
about ways to make unwanted items available
for reuse.

Consistent. As described above, future development project would be required to comply with AB 939 and SCMC Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction. In addition, General Plan Policy EM12.2 and EM-12.3 would encourage minimization of waste by expanding recycling programs, utilizing repairable goods, and practicing reuse.

Strategy 27: Construction and Demolition
Waste. Increase the amount of waste recycled
Consistent. As described above, future development project would be required to comply with AB 939. SCMC Chapter 8.05, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris, contains diversion 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-36 JANUARY 2025
TABLE 4.7-6 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION PLAN
during construction and demolition of
buildings.
requirements and waste management plan as part of the building or demolition permit process in alignment with AB 939. In addition, General Plan Action EM-12.3, EM-12.5, and EM-12.6 would require a construction and demolition debris waste plan to maximize recycling rates and encourage practices, such as building deconstruction or recycled pavement.

Strategy 28: Composting and Recycling.

Partner with RethinkWaste to expand
commercial and multi-family residential
recycling and composting programs.

Consistent. Future development would be subject to the County’s waste requirements and Cal Recycle SB 1383 to reduce statewide disposal of organic waste (including paper, cardboard, yard materials, food scraps, and food-soiled paper). As described above, SCMC Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, contains a 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 to reduce solid waste generated in their jurisdictions. In addition, General Plan Policy EM-12.3, Action EM-12.3 and EM-12.7 would encourage minimization of waste by expanding recycling programs and commercial food scraps program.

Goal 8: Reduce community-wide water use
Strategy 31: Water-efficient Retrofits.

Encourage water-efficient retrofits of existing
buildings by working with water providers and
regional agencies.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes. Chapter 15.04 provides regulations for energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, environmental quality, and more. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-5.3 and EM-5.5 would promote the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing development.

Strategy 32: Water-wise Landscaping.

Promote drought-tolerant and fire wise
landscaping.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, which include requirements related to water use for landscaping. This includes the California Water Code, California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, and SCMC 18.18, Landscaping, to implement water-conserving irrigation practices to conserve water and energy. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-5.4 encourages the use of drought-tolerant plans and efficient watering techniques.

Strategy 33: Graywater and Recycled Water.

Promote graywater and recycled water
systems.

Consistent. As described above, future development would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes, including the California Water Code, California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, and SCMC Chapter 18.18, Landscaping, to implement water features using recycled water. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-5.5, and Action EM-5.6 and EM-5.8 would promote the use of recycled water distribution system for landscaping and other non-potable water uses.

Source: PlaceWorks, 2024; and City of San Carlos, September 2021, City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan), https://cms3.revize.com/revize/sancarlos/Document%20Center/City%20Hall/Departments%20And%20Divisions/City%20Manager/Sustainability/Cli mate%20Action/CMAP%20Final.pdf, accessed October 16, 2024.

As identified in Table 4.7-6, the proposed project would be consistent with the strategies in the City’s CMAP. Moreover, while growth in the EIR Study Area would cumulatively contribute to GHG emissions impacts, as discussed in impact discussion GHG-1, the Land Use (LU) Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) 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 GHG emissions. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion GHG-1 would serve to reduce GHG emissions. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-37
Implementation of the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the CMAP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

CARB Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. Local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS mandate and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards.

Future development projects would be required to adhere to the statewide programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. For example, new buildings in the EIR Study Area would be required to meet the CALGreen and Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Furthermore, as discussed in impact discussion GHG-1, the Land Use (LU) Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) 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 GHG emissions. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion GHG-1 would serve to reduce achieve GHG reduction goals. Implementation of the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2050 is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area.34 In addition to significant transit and roadway performance investments to encourage focused growth, Plan Bay Area 2050 directs funding to neighborhood active transportation and complete streets projects, climate initiatives, lifeline transportation and access initiatives, safety programs, and PDA planning. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area has one PDA that includes El Camino Real and the downtown area. 34 Association of Bay Area Governments and the 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 October 16, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-38 JANUARY 2025
Due to the built-out nature of San Carlos, future development in the EIR Study Area is projected to occur on infill parcels in previously developed areas. Given that future growth would be concentrated in areas currently served by public services and infrastructure, implementation of the proposed project would require less investment in infrastructure than if development was to occur on “greenfield” sites. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit. The proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050 and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GHG-3 The proposed project would, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts in the area
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.

Therefore, impacts under impact discussions GHG-1 and GHG-2 are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. As described above, various goals and policies provided in the proposed project would help minimize GHG emissions generated by the residential and nonresidential land uses in the EIR Study Area.

As described under impact discussion GHG-1, the proposed project would contribute to cumulative global climate change impacts. This impact is significant and unavoidable and is identified and discussed in impact discussion GHG-1.

As described in impact discussion GHG-2, the proposed project would not obstruct the implementation of the City’s CMAP, CARB’s Scoping Plan, or Plan Bay Area 2050. This less-than-significant impact is identified and discussed in impact discussion GHG-2.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-1

4.8 HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to hazards and hazardous materials, 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. A discussion of wildland fire hazards is provided in Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR.

4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Various federal, State, regional and local agencies oversee hazards and hazardous materials issues in San Carlos and have established regulations at various levels designed to protect human health and the environment from the effects of hazardous materials. These agencies include the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and the Office of Emergency Services. In California, the USEPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to Cal/EPA. The federal regulations are primarily codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) enforce regulations specifically related to hazardous materials transport. Within Cal/EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has primary authority to enforce hazardous materials regulations. State hazardous waste regulations are contained primarily in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the lead agency responsible for identifying, monitoring and cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks in the Bay Area. In turn, local jurisdictions such as the County of San Mateo Health Services Agency (CSMHSA) and the Redwood CitySan Carlos Fire Department (RC-SCFD) may take the lead agency role as a Local Oversight Program (LOP) entity, implementing State as well as local policies. In the city limit and Sphere of Influence (SOI), the lead agency for hazardous materials and any associated potential contamination to the environment is the CSMHSA.

Federal Agencies
Following are the federal agencies that oversee hazards and hazardous materials concerns.

United States Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA is the federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. The legislation includes the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly referred to as 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-2 JANUARY 2025
“Superfund”), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1986 (RCRA). The USEPA provides oversight and supervision for site investigations and remediation projects and has developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards for the disposal of certain hazardous wastes.

United States Department of Transportation
Transportation of chemicals and hazardous materials are governed by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), which stipulates the types of containers and labeling and other restrictions to be used in the movement of such material on interstate highways.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees administration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers, provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from manufacturers. Material safety data sheets describe the risks associated with hazardous materials, and proper handling and procedures. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.

Federal Aviation Agency
The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) issues and enforces regulations covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircrafts. The FAA also certifies airmen and airports (including helicopters) that serve air carriers and conducts research on and develops systems and procedures needed for a safe and efficient system of air navigation and air traffic control.

State Agencies
Following are the State agencies and regulations pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEPA was created in 1991 by the Governor’s Executive Order. Six boards, departments, and offices were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. CalEPA oversees hazardous materials and hazardous waste compliance throughout California. Among those responsible for hazardous materials and waste management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). CalEPA also oversees the unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program (Unified Program), which consolidates and coordinates:
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)  Underground Storage Tank Program
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Act
 Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs  California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Inventory Statements 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-3
 California Accidental Release Prevention Program
State Water Resources Control Board
In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has broad authority over water quality control issues for the state. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the Clean Water Act.

SWRCB’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) program protects the public health and safety, and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous substances from USTs. The program elements include:
 Leak Prevention. This program element includes requirements for tank installation, construction, testing, leak detection, spill containment, and overfill protection.  Cleanup. Cleanup of leaking tanks often involves a soil and groundwater investigation and remediation, under the direction of a regulatory agency.  Enforcement. The SWRCB aid local agencies in enforcing UST requirements.  Tank Tester Licensing. Tank integrity testing is required by law, must meet the requirements of the SWRCB, and must be conducted by State licensed tank testers.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
The mission of the OEHHA is to protect and enhance public health and the environment by objective scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.

Department of Toxic Substance Control
The DTSC works in conjunction with the USEPA to enforce and implement specific laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes. California legislation, for which the DTSC has primary enforcement authority, includes the Hazardous Waste Control Act and the Hazardous Substance Account Act. Most State hazardous waste regulations are contained in the CCR, Title 27. The DTSC generally acts as the lead agency for soil and groundwater cleanup projects and establishes cleanup and action levels for subsurface contamination that are equal to, or more restrictive than, federal levels.

Department of Pesticide Regulation
The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has the primary responsibility for regulating all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect public health and the environment. The DPR’s mission is to evaluate and mitigate impacts of pesticide use, maintain the safety of the pesticide workplace, ensure product effectiveness and encourage the development and use of reduced-risk pest control practices while recognizing the need for pest management in a healthy economy.

California Air Resources Board and Bay Area Air Quality Management District San Carlos is in the Bay Area air basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Bay Area Air Management District (BAAQMD) have joint responsibility for developing and enforcing regulations to achieve and maintain State and federal ambient air quality standards in the district. CARB is responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act and California's State Ambient Air Quality Standards. The BAAQMD is 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-4 JANUARY 2025
responsible for regulating air emissions from stationary sources, monitoring air quality and reviewing air quality issues in environmental documents.

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is the responsible State agency for ensuring workplace safety. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. If a work site is contaminated, a site safety plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site safety plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the expose of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) was established as part of the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009. It was created pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 38, which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the former Governor’s Emergency Management Agency with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards––natural, man-made, emergencies, and disasters––and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.

California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol Caltrans and the CHP are the two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highways and freeways, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highways, freeways, and intercity rail lines. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance.

The State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the state. Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to Section 32000 of the California Vehicle Code. This section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier that transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time, and every carrier, if not for hire, that carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the business in the delivery of hazardous materials. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
Local Agencies
Following are the regional and County-level agencies that oversee hazards and hazardous materials in San Mateo County.

County of San Mateo Health Services Agency
The CSMHSA, which includes the Division of Environmental Health, serves as the County Local Oversight Program within the County of San Mateo for hazardous materials and soil and groundwater contamination. This agency oversees several programs related to hazardous materials and releases, including the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, California Accidental Release Program, Hazardous Material Program Fees, Underground Storage Tank Program, Underground Storage Tanks Form Index, Groundwater Protection Program, Stormwater Protection Program, Emergency Response Program, Household Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Service, Household Waste Program, Universal Waste Program and Medical Waste Program.

The Hazardous Materials Division of the CSMHSA oversees hazardous materials permitting, hazardous materials oversight and hazardous materials facility closures. Virtually all hazardous waste use, spills and releases are reported to and regulated under the CSMHSA; however, the City of San Carlos falls under the jurisdiction of the RC-SCFD, which is the first responder to hazardous material spills and releases.

San Mateo County Hazardous Materials Team
The San Mateo County Hazardous Materials Team responds to hazardous materials emergencies throughout the county. Hazardous materials response, mitigation, and clean-up efforts for the county is managed by the Belmont Fire Protection District's Hazardous Materials Team through a contract between the County of San Mateo, the Emergency Services Council, and the Belmont Fire Protection District.

Redwood City-San Carlos Fire Department
The City of San Carlos is served by the RC-SCFD. The RC-SCFD, a joint powers and governmental agency, provides fire and emergency response services to the cities of Redwood City and San Carlos. The RCSCFD is responsible for fire response, vehicle accidents, public assistance, medical emergencies, water rescue, and hazardous material response. In addition, the RC-SCFD is also responsible for disaster preparedness and other services, such as building plan review, fire prevention, and fire hydrant testing.

Chapter 4.14, Public Services, of this Draft EIR, provides additional details about fire protection resources and services in San Carlos.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
As previously described, the SWRCB contains several regional water boards. The City of San Carlos falls within Zone 2 (San Francisco Bay Region). The RWQCB generally oversees cases involving groundwater contamination. Within Zone 2, the CSMHSA handles most leaking UST (LUST) cases, so the RWQCB may oversee cases involving other groundwater contaminants—i.e. Spills, Leaks, Incidents, and Clean-up 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-6 JANUARY 2025
cases. In the case of spills at a project site, the responsible party would notify the CSMHSA, and then a lead regulator (either the CSMHSA, RWQCB, or DTSC) would be determined.

Federal Regulations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste. Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed. DTSC is responsible for implementing the RCRA program as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program, CalEPA has in turn delegated enforcement authority to the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Services Division for State law regulating hazardous waste producers or generators in San Mateo County.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended the CERCLA on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites; required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and federal environmental laws and regulations; provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools; increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program; increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites; encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up; and increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation was the “Emergency Planning and community Right-to-Know Act of 1986” (EPCRA). EPCRA was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. This law helps local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards in their areas by requiring businesses to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored onsite to state and local agencies. These reports help communities prepare to respond to chemical spills and similar emergencies.

Section 313 of EPCRA requires manufacturers to report releases to the environment (air, soil, and water) of more than 600 designated toxic chemicals, report offsite transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, develop pollution prevention measures and activities, and participate in chemical 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-7
recycling. These annual reports are submitted to the USEPA and state agencies. EPCRA Sections 301 through 312 are administered by the USEPA’s Office of Emergency Management. The USEPA’s Office of Information Analysis and Access implements the EPCRA Section 313 program. In California, SARA Title III is implemented through the California Accidental Release Prevention Program.

The USEPA maintains and publishes a database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities by certain industry groups and federal facilities. This online, publicly available, national digital database is called the Toxics Release Inventory and was expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

Under the EPCRA requirements, local emergency planning committees are responsible for developing a plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency, including:
 An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present.  The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community-wide evacuation plan).
 A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred.  The names of response coordinators at local facilities.  A plan for conducting drills to test the plan.

The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The local emergency planning committee is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. In California, SARA Title III is implemented through the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program. Under the CUPA program, the CalEPA has in turn delegated enforcement authority to the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division for CalARP. 1
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires state and local governments to prepare mitigation plans that identify hazards, potential losses, mitigation needs, goals, and strategies. It is intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local governments.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was enacted by Congress to give the USEPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced by or imported into the United States. The USEPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of any that may pose an environmental or human health hazard. It can ban the manufacture and import of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. Also, the USEPA has mechanisms in place to track the thousands of new chemicals that industry develops each year with either unknown or dangerous characteristics. It then can control 1 San Mateo County Health, 2022, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, https://www.smchealth.org/hazwaste, accessed October 3, 2022.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-8 JANUARY 2025
these chemicals as necessary to protect human health and the environment. The Act supplements other federal statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Toxics Release Inventory under EPCRA.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The DOT regulates hazardous materials transportation under Title 49 of the CFR. State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are CHP and Caltrans. The California State Fire Marshal’s Office has oversight authority for hazardous materials liquid pipelines. The California Public Utilities Commission has oversight authority for natural gas pipelines in California. These agencies also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation.

Business Plan Act
Both the federal government and the State of California require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous waste materials or extremely hazardous materials––termed a reporting quantity––to submit a hazardous materials business plan to the local CUPA.

Such a plan must be submitted by businesses that handle hazardous materials or a mixture containing a hazardous material in quantities equal to or greater than:
 500 pounds of a solid
 55 gallons of a liquid
 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas standard temperature and pressure  The federal Threshold Planning Quantity for Extremely Hazardous Substances  Radioactive materials in quantities for which an emergency plan is required per Parts 30, 40, or 70 of the CFR, Title 10, Chapter 1
The business plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map, risks of using these materials, spill prevention, emergency response, employee training, and emergency contacts.

Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1992 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies and other resource providers, including the American Red Cross, that: (1) provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of State and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; (2) supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and (3) supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address specific hazards.

The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency. The Federal Response Plan is part of the National Response Framework, which was most recently updated in October 2019. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-9
The Stafford Act
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) of 1988, as amended, authorizes federal government assistance for emergencies and disasters when State and local capabilities are exceeded. The Stafford Act forms the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially as they relate to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs.

National Response Framework
The National Response Framework, published by the United States Department of Homeland Security and last updated October 2019, is a guide for the nation to respond to all types of disasters and emergencies.2 This framework describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range from serious local or large-scale terrorist attacks to catastrophic natural disasters. In addition, the National Response Framework describes the principles, roles, and responsibilities, and coordinating structures for responding to an incident, and further describes how response efforts integrate with those of the other mission areas.

Asbestos-Containing Materials Regulations
State agencies, in conjunction with the USEPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for asbestos-containing materials. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations; medical evaluation and monitoring are required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. The regulations include warnings and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, state, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos. Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified in BAAQMD’s Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). 3 California Government Code Sections
1529 and 1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection and good working practice by workers exposed to lead and asbestos-containing materials.

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the DOT to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the DOT develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation’s 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system. DOT’s and PHMSA’s regulations governing 2 United States Department of Homeland Security, October 28, 2019, National Response Framework, fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/NRF_FINALApproved_2011028.pdf. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. https://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/asbestos, accessed October 25, 2025. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-10 JANUARY 2025
natural gas transmission pipelines, facility operations, employee activities, and safety are found at CFR Title 49, Parts 190 through 192, Part 195, and Part 199.

Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act mandates that the DOT, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Department of Commerce carry out a program of research, development, demonstration, and standardization to ensure the integrity of pipeline facilities.4 The purpose of the Research and Design Program is to identify safety and integrity issues and develop methodologies and technologies to characterize, detect, and manage risks associated with natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.

Pipeline Inspection, Enforcement, and Protection Act of 2006 The Pipeline Inspection, Enforcement, and Protection Act confirms the commitment to the Integrity Management Program and other programs enacted in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. The 2006 legislation includes provisions on:
 Preventing excavation damage to pipelines through the enhanced use and improved enforcement of State “One-Call” laws that preclude excavators from digging until they contact the State One-Call system to locate the underground pipelines;
 Minimum standards for Integrity Management Programs for distribution pipelines (including installation of excess flow valves on single-family residential service lines based on feasibility and risk);
 Standards for managing gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to reduce risks associated with human factors (e.g., fatigue);
 Authority for the Secretary to waive safety standards in emergencies;  Authority for the Secretary to assist in restoration of disrupted pipeline operations;  Review and update incident reporting requirements;
 Requirements for senior executive officers to certify operator integrity management performance reports; and
 Clarification of jurisdiction between states and PHMSA for short laterals that feed industrial and electric generator consumers from interstate natural gas pipelines.5 4 United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, October 2017, Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/congressional-mandates/pipeline-safetyimprovement-act-2002. 5 Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, 2022, The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, https://www.ingaa.org/Pipelines101/143/861/851.aspx,. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-11
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 was designed to examine and improve the state of pipeline safety regulation. This act accomplishes the following:
 Reauthorizes PHMSA's federal pipeline safety programs through fiscal year 2015.  Provides the regulatory certainty necessary for pipeline owners and operators to plan infrastructure investments and create jobs.
 Improves pipeline transportation by strengthening enforcement of current laws and improving existing laws where necessary.
 Ensures a balanced regulatory approach to improving safety that applies cost-benefit principles.  Protects and preserves Congressional authority by ensuring certain key rulemakings are not finalized until Congress has an opportunity to act.6
State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code and Code of Regulations The Hazardous Substances Account Act (California Health and Safety Code Sections 25300 et seq.) authorizes the State to clean up hazardous materials release sites––including abandoned sites––not qualifying for cleanup under CERCLA; provides funds to pay for the state’s share of costs of CERCLA cleanups; and provides compensation to persons injured by hazardous materials releases.

California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and CCR Title 19 Section 2729 describe the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled onsite. A business that uses hazardous materials, or mixtures containing them, in certain quantities must establish and implement a business plan.

CCR Title 8 Section 5191 requires that all laboratories have a written chemical hygiene plan as a fundamental chemical safety plan for the laboratory. The chemical hygiene plans are written programs that set forth procedures, equipment, personal protective equipment, and work practices that are capable of protecting employees from the health hazards presented by hazardous chemicals used in laboratories.

Tanner Act
Although numerous state policies deal with hazardous waste, the most comprehensive is the Tanner Act (AB 2948), which was adopted in 1986. The Tanner Act governs the preparation of hazardous waste management plans and the siting of hazardous waste facilities in California. To be in compliance with the Tanner Act, local or regional hazardous waste management plans need to include provisions that define:
6 United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, January 2020, Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/legislative-mandates/pipelinesafety-act/pipeline-safety-regulatory-certainty-and-job-creation-act. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-12 JANUARY 2025
1) the planning process for waste management, 2) the permit process for new and expanded facilities, and 3) the appeals process to the state available for certain local decisions.

California Building Code
The state of California provided a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is in 24 CCR Part 2. The CBC is based on the International Building Code, modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Buildings are plan checked by city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC.

State Hazardous Waste Management Programs
Numerous State programs regulate hazardous waste management.

Underground Storage Tank Program
Releases of petroleum and other products from USTs are the leading source of groundwater contamination in the United States. The RCRA Subtitle I establishes regulations governing the storage of petroleum products and hazardous substances in USTs and the prevention and cleanup of leaks. In USEPA Region 9 (California, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Pacific Islands, and over 140 tribal nations) the UST program operates primarily through state agency programs with USEPA oversight. In California, the SWRCB, under the umbrella of CalEPA, provides assistance to local agencies enforcing UST requirements.

The purpose of the UST program is to protect public health and safety and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous substances. The program consists of four elements: leak prevention, cleanup, enforcement, and tank tester licensing. In September 2004, the SWRCB adopted regulations that require electronic submittal of information for groundwater cleanup programs, including groundwater analytical data, the surveyed locations of monitoring wells, and other data. The SWRCB’s GeoTracker system currently has information submitted by responsible parties for over 10,000 LUST sites statewide and has been extended to include all SWRCB groundwater cleanup programs, including the LUST, non-LUST (Spill, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup), Department of Defense, and landfill programs.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5
CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, sets forth the requirements for hazardous-waste generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation.

Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs
Both the federal and state governments and the state require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials, termed a reporting quantity, to submit a hazardous materials emergency/contingency plan (also known as a hazardous materials 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-13
business plan) to their local CUPA (CFR, USEPA, SARA, and Title III) (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Sections 2500-25520; 19 CCR, Chapter 2, Subchapter 3, Article 4, Sections 2729-2734).

Hazardous Materials Business Plans
The hazardous materials business plan includes the business owner/operator identification page, hazardous materials inventory chemical description page, and an emergency response plan and training plan. Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. The entire hazardous materials business plan needs to be reviewed and recertified every three years. Business plans are required to include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures to follow for immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel of a release, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. All facilities must keep a copy of their plan onsite.

Hazardous materials business plans are designed to be used for responding agencies during a release or spill to allow for a quick and accurate evaluation of each situation for appropriate response. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of hazardous materials if there is a reasonable belief that the release or threatened release of hazardous materials poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. If a release involves a hazardous substance listed in Title 40 of the CFR in an amount equal to or exceeding the reportable quantity for that material, a notice must be filed with the Cal OES within 15 days of the incident. Both the federal government (CFR) and the State of California (California Health and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount—or “reporting quantity”—of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan to the CSMHSA. According to City guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a business plan is required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in specified quantities.

Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update their business plan and the chemical portion annually. Also, business plans must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.

Hazardous Materials Incident Response
Under Title III of SARA, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) is responsible for developing an emergency plan for preparing for and responding to chemical emergencies in that community. The State 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-14 JANUARY 2025
Emergency Response Commission (SERC) established six emergency planning districts. The SERC appointed a LEPC for each planning district and supervises and coordinates their activities.

The emergency plan developed by the LEPCs must include:
 An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present.  The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community-wide evacuation plan).
 A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred.  The names of response coordinators at local facilities.  A plan for conducting exercises to test the plan.

The plan is reviewed by the SERC and publicized throughout the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year.

Hazardous Materials Spill/Release Notification Guidance All significant spills, releases, or threatened releases of hazardous materials must be immediately reported. Federal and state emergency notifications are required for all significant releases of hazardous materials. Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. The following state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release:
 Health and Safety Codes, Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507  Vehicle Code, Section 23112.5
 Public Utilities Code, Section 7673 (PUC General Orders #22-b, 161)  Government Code, Sections 51018, 8670.25.5(a)
 Water Code, Sections 13271, 13272
 California Labor Code, Section 6409.1(b)10
In addition, all releases that result in injuries or workers harmfully exposed must be immediately reported to California OSHA (California Labor Code, Section 6409.1[b]). Additional reporting requirements are in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65, and Section 9030 of California Labor Code.

Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the Cal/OSHA pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b).

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The CalARP became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill (SB) 1889. CalARP replaced the California Risk Management and Prevention Program. Under CalARP, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services must adopt implementing regulations and seek delegation of the program from the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-15
USEPA. CalARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the migration measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. In most cases, local governments will have the lead role for working directly with businesses in this program. The CSMHSA is the CUPA designated as the administering agency for CalARP.

Government Code Section 65302
Government Code Section 65302 requires the Safety Element of a General Plan to address evacuation routes. The California Department of Fire and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Safety Element checklist also requires cities to address evacuation routes. In addition, SB 99 (2018) requires a Safety Element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020, to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.

Regional Regulations
San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters. The San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), updated in 2021 in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000, provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these hazards.

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) covering all three public airports in San Mateo County was approved by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in December 1996. The C/CAG is the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) responsible for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The C/CAG has since adopted updated ALUCPs for San Francisco International Airport (November 2012), Half Moon Bay Airport (September 2014), and San Carlos Airport (October 2015).

The updated ALUCP for San Carlos Airport describes a series of land use safety and compatibility zones and associated guidelines for development around the San Carlos Airport that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport operations.7 These regulations include height restrictions based on proximity to the airport and flight patterns. The ALCUP for the San Carlos Airport delineates two Airport Influence Areas (AIA), Area A and Area B, within proximity to the airport. As a requirement for development located in Area A, the presence of existing airports within two miles of the property must be disclosed in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale. For development located 7 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2015, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan For the Environs of San Carlos Airport, https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SQL_FinalALUCP_Oct15_read.pdf, accessed March 7, 2022.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-16 JANUARY 2025
within Area B of the AIA, the C/CAG Board shall exercise its statutory duty to review proposed land development proposals, among other plans, ordinances, amendments, and actions.

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 4.8.3, 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 hazards and hazardous materials as follows:
 Section 2.28.080, Emergency Plan, states that the City of San Carlos Disaster Council is responsible for the development of the City’s emergency plan, which shall provide the effective mobilization of all the resources of the City, both public and private, to meet any condition constituting a local emergency.
 Title 13, Public Services, requires that individual business plans for any facility subject to the hazardous materials inventory response program include a program for compliance.  Title 18, Zoning, regulates what types of properties are permitted to use hazardous materials and specifically regulates the location of these types of facilities to ensure that they do not endanger the general public and that they are separate from sensitive land uses such as schools.

San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan
The City Council adopted the City of San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in March 2022. The EOP establishes the emergency management structure utilized for prevention, protection, response, and recovery of emergencies affecting the City; the operational concepts and procedures associated with day-to-day field response to emergencies by City departments; and the policies and procedures for the San Carlos Emergency Center activities. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures utilized to protect the health and safety of residents, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural, technological, and man-made emergencies and disasters, as well as defines the procedures for a disaster recovery process. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-17

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to public health and safety or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (22 CCR Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria.

Past industrial or commercial activities on a site could have resulted in spills or leaks of hazardous materials to the ground, resulting in soil and/or groundwater contamination. Hazardous materials may also be present in building materials of older structures and released during building demolition activities. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and wastes can cause public health hazards when released to the soil, groundwater, or air. The four basic exposure pathways through which an individual can be exposed to a chemical agent include inhalation, ingestion, bodily contact, and injection. Exposure can come as a result of an accidental release during transportation, storage, or handling of hazardous materials. Disturbance of subsurface soil during construction can also lead to exposure of workers or the public from stockpiling, handling, or transportation of soils contaminated by hazardous materials or waste from previous spills or leaks.

Hazardous Materials Sites
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6) requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether the project and any alternatives are identified on any of the following lists:
 USEPA National Priorities List. The USEPA’s National Priorities List includes all sites under the USEPA’s Superfund program, which was established to fund cleanup of contaminated sites that pose risks to human health and the environment.
 USEPA CERCLIS and Archived Sites. The USEPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) includes a list of 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous sites. This would also involve a review for archived sites that have been removed from CERCLIS due to No Further Remedial Action Planned status.  USEPA RCRIS (RCRA Info). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS or RCRA Info) is a national inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. Generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information for this database.
 DTSC Cortese List. The DTSC maintains the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list as a planning document for use by the State and local agencies to comply with the CEQA requirements in 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-18 JANUARY 2025
providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list includes the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database.  DTSC HazNet. The DTSC uses this database to track hazardous waste shipments.  SWRCB LUSTIS. Through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System, the SWRCB maintains an inventory of USTs and LUSTs, which tracks unauthorized releases.

The required lists of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” named after the legislator who authored the legislation. Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases, the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including DTSC’s online EnviroStor database and the SWRCB’s online GeoTracker database. These two databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction.

A search of the online EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases on October 17, 2024, identified 159 hazardous materials sites within the EIR Study Area.8,9 Of the 159 sites, 31 are designated as “open” on Geotracker and four sites are designated as “active” on Envirostor. The remaining 124 sites are designated as “closed” or “completed – case closed,” “Inactive – Needs Evaluation,” “InactiveWithdrawn,” “No Further Action,” “No Action Required,” and “Certified.” The full list of the 35 hazardous materials sites designated as “open” or “active” are included in Table 4.8-1, Hazardous Material Sites in the EIR Study Area. The majority of the 35 listed sites are classified as clean-up program sites, where recent or historical unauthorized releases of pollutants to the environment, including soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment, have occurred. Many of these sites are existing or former dry cleaners, gas stations, plant nurseries, or light industrial uses typical of urban and suburban communities in the Bay Area.

TABLE 4.8-1 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA ID Site Name Address Site Type Status
Envirostor
60001135 Tanklage Square 837 Industrial Road Voluntary Cleanup Active 60003201 941 Bransten Road 941 Bransten Road Voluntary Cleanup Active 80001427 G-C Lubricants Co 977 Bransten Rd Corrective Action Active 80001743 California Oil Recyclers Inc 977a Bransten Rd Corrective Action Active Geotracker
T10000013786 1091 Industrial Owner,
LLC Property
1091 Industrial Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Long Term Management
8 Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed October 17, 2024.
9 State Water Resources Control Board, 2024, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed October 17, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-19
TABLE 4.8-1 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA ID Site Name Address Site Type Status
T10000012536 1409 & 1411 Industrial
Road
1409-1411 Industrial
Road
Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
T10000021229 642 Quarry Owner, LLC 642 Quarry Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Long Term Management
T10000022795 681 Old County Road
Property
681 Old County Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000018732 888 Bransten Rd 888 Bransten Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation T0608100054 B & H Technical Ceramics 390 Industrial Rd Lust Cleanup Site Open - Eligible For Closure
T10000011493 Blu-White Laundry
(Former)
1161 Brittan Ave Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000004555 California Plating (Former) 1083 American Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation T0608198024 Carlos Cleaners 1000 Laurel Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000021430 Cherry Street Commons
LP
1232-1244 Cherry
Street
Cleanup Program Site Open - Long Term
Management
SLT2O256352 Circuits Facility 641 Quarry Rd Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive T10000017289 Country Cleaners (Former) 1239 Laurel St Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment SL18392812 Delta Star 270 Industrial Rd Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation - Land Use Restrictions
T0608103289 Eaton Cleaners & Dyers
(Former)
1752-1754 Laurel Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
T10000009575 Former Industrial Plating 803 American St Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000003223 Former Sterling Screw 925 Tanklage Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment SL599992810 G.N. Renn Bulk Storage
Tanks, San Carlos
833 Old County Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000022854 Glenny Properties 925 Terminal Way Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T0608191590 Home Depot Gte Lenkurt 1000 Howard Ave Cleanup Program Site Open - Inactive T0608191580 Kelly Moore Paint
Company Inc
919 Old County Rd Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation SL1821P612 Litton Electron Devices 960 Industrial Rd Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation T10000011444 Lovan Trust Property 672 Laurel Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Eligible For Closure - Land Use
Restrictions
SL0608183917 Peninsula Laboratories
(Former)
601 Taylor Way Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation
T0608146836 Praxair Distribution
(Former)
767 Industrial Cleanup Program Site Open - Verification Monitoring
SL18390810 Putnam Honda 495 Bragato Rd Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation T10000005837 Pyromet Inc. (Former) 595 Industrial Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Long Term Management
T10000001707 San Carlos Transit Village 281-633 El Camino Real Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action
T10000022853 Trac Properties 915 Terminal Way Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000022852 Vera Lindburg Trust 909 Terminal Way Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000017554 White Oak Cleaners 1200 Belmont Ave Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment T10000022476 Cordilleras Health Facility 200 Edmonds Road LUST Cleanup Site Open-Site Assessment Source: State Water Resources Control Board, 2024; Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-20 JANUARY 2025
Hazardous Materials Generators
The USEPA regulates generators of hazardous waste based on the amount of waste generated. Large quantity generators produce 1,000 kilograms or more per month, or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. Small quantity generators produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month.

Potential Hazardous Building Materials
As stated in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, some buildings in the city were built before the 1970s; based on the ages of these buildings, there is a potential for building materials to contain asbestos or lead-based paint (LBP). A potential release of hazardous materials could occur when asbestos containing materials (ACM) or LBP are disturbed during renovation or demolition activities. This disturbance could be harmful to human health. Typical hazardous materials of concern for existing older structures in the city include the following:
 Asbestos is a mineral fiber that is carcinogenic and harmful to respiratory health. Because of its fiber strength and heat resistance, it was widely used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant, as well as in friction and heat-resistant products. Use of asbestos in the manufacturing of these products was common throughout California, until 1977, when it was banned. Older buildings constructed prior to 1978 could contain ACM. Asbestos can be released when ACMs are disturbed by cutting, sanding, drilling, or other remodeling activities. Improper attempts to remove these materials can release asbestos fibers into the air, increasing asbestos levels and affecting indoor air quality.
 Lead is a recognized harmful environmental pollutant that can pose a hazard when exposed through air, drinking water, food, contaminated soil, deteriorating paint, and dust. Lead was widely used in paint, gasoline, water pipes, and many other products prior to documentation of its health hazards.

The use of LBP was banned in California in 1978, and therefore, buildings constructed prior to 1978 could contain LBP. If LBP is improperly removed from surfaces by dry scraping or sanding, LBP can be inhaled or otherwise absorbed into the body and could pose a potential public health risk.  Mold can impair indoor air quality. The presence of visible water damage, damp materials, visible mold, or mold odor in buildings increases the potential risks of respiratory disease of occupants.

According to the California Department of Public Health, known health risks include the development of asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections, the triggering of asthma attacks, and increased wheezing, coughing, difficulty breathing, and other symptoms.  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are synthetic chemicals that were manufactured for use in various industrial and commercial applications––including oil in electrical and hydraulic equipment, and plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products––because of their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulation properties. When released into the environment, PCBs persist for many years and bioaccumulate in organisms. The USEPA has classified PCBs as probable human carcinogens. In 1979, the USEPA banned the use of PCBs in most new electrical equipment and began a program to phase out certain existing PCB-containing equipment. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-21
 Radon is a naturally occurring odorless, tasteless, and invisible gas produced from the decay of uranium in soil and water. Structures placed on native soils with elevated levels of radon can be impacted by the intrusion of radon gas into breathing spaces of the overlying structures, which can cause lung cancer. San Mateo County is listed as a Zone 2 county, which predicts an average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 pCi/L, which is within the recommended levels assigned by the USEPA for radon testing.
10 Schools
As previously described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, some land uses are considered more sensitive to airborne hazardous materials than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Because sensitive population groups include children, CEQA requires an evaluation of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school, private or public.

The City of San Carlos is served by two public school districts: the San Carlos School District and the Sequoia Union High School District.

Airport Hazards
The San Carlos Airport is located within the San Carlos city limit, east of US Highway 101, along the bay shoreline. The 160-acre airport is located on land owned by the County of San Mateo and managed by the County Public Works Department. Primary uses of the San Carlos Airport include private planes that are utilized for both business and recreation. The airport also allows private jets under 12,500 pounds to land and take off at any time, but activities such as student training are limited to daytime to meet noise abatement requirements. Additional airport services include emergency response functions such as AirAmbulance, Medivac flights and law enforcement patrols.

Pipelines
Pipelines of concern carry hazardous liquids and/or gases that can be harmful to life and property. The EIR Study area contains hazardous pipelines areas. According to the DOT National Pipeline Mapping System, four gas transmission pipelines run through the EIR study area. This includes one along Brittan Avenue, through Palomar Park, and continuing west between Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and Edgewood Park and Natural Preserve. A second pipeline is located west of the State Route 280. Another gas transmission pipeline runs along Old Country Road in the northern end of the City, and one that connects from Old Country Road, following along Bing Street to continue east along Industrial Road.11 10 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024 (accessed). California- EPA Radon Zones. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-08/documents/california.pdf 11 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2024. National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). Public Viewer. https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-22 JANUARY 2025

4.8.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts related to wildland fires are fully discussed in Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR. Therefore, the following standard is not discussed in this chapter.

Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

The proposed project would result in a significant hazards and hazardous materials impact if it would:

HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

HAZ-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

HAZ-7 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts in the area.

4.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
HAZ-1 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Construction
Potentially hazardous materials used during construction include substances such as paints, sealants, solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and diesel fuel. There is potential for these materials to spill or to create hazardous conditions. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short-term or one time in nature. In the event of a potential release and cleanup of a hazardous material in the construction process, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Services Division would provide oversight of environmental investigations and cleanup of contaminated sites. Project 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-23
construction workers would be trained in safe handling and hazardous materials use pursuant to Cal/OSHA requirements.

To prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, state, and federal laws—such as those listed under Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory Background—would be enforced at the construction sites, as well as during the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction. Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities must be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with state and local regulations for that contaminant. All contaminated waste must be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Strict adherence to all EOP requirements set by San Mateo County would also be required throughout the duration of project construction.

Furthermore, the 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 hazards and hazardous materials, including transport, use, and disposal.

The following General Plan goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction:
 Goal ESPS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.  Policy ESPS-5.2: Require producers of and users of hazardous materials in San Carlos to conform to all local, State and federal regulations regarding the production, disposal, and transportation of these materials.
 Policy ESPS-5.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria, and standards enforcement.  Policy ESPS-5.5: Where deemed necessary, based on the history of land use, require site assessment for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior to approving development applications.
 Policy ESPS-5.6: Require that new development proposals are reviewed for legally required remediation by authorities with jurisdictional authority over groundwater and surface water contamination including but not limited to San Mateo County Environmental Health, State Water Quality Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers, where waters of the United States are involved, and collaborate with authorities to ensure all relevant remediation requirements are met.
 Policy ESPS-5.11: Encourage the use of green building practices to reduce potentially hazardous materials in construction materials.
 Action ESPS-5.5: Prioritize remediation efforts and ensure all relevant remediation requirements are met by requiring new development proposals be reviewed for legally required mediation by 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-24 JANUARY 2025
San Mateo County Environmental Health, State Water Quality Control Board, and the Army Corp of Engineers.

Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified above, would ensure hazardous impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project would allow for the development of a variety of land uses, including industrial, residential, commercial, office, civic, and open space uses. Industrial uses and some commercial uses utilize greater amounts of hazardous materials than other uses, such as residential uses and schools.

Operation of future residential and some commercial uses would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. Operation of future industrial and some types of commercial uses would involve use of larger amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuel/diesel, and commercial grade chemicals, solvents, cleaners, etc. These types of industrial and commercial uses, and therefore, the specific types of hazardous materials to be used, are not yet known.

The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by future residents and commercial and industrial tenants/owners would be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies, including the USEPA, DTSC, Cal/OSHA, Caltrans, and RC-SCFD. Regulations that would apply to the uses that involve transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials include RCRA, which provides the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes; CERCLA, which regulates closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on United State roadways; International Fire Code, which creates procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials; CCR Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; and CCR Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid wastes. For development in California, Government Code Section 65850.2 requires that no final certificate of occupancy or its substantial equivalent be issued unless there is verification that the owner or authorized agent has met, or is meeting, the applicable requirements of the Health and Safety Code Sections 25500 through 25520.

SCMC Title 13 also requires that individual business plans for any facility subject to the hazardous materials inventory response program include a program for compliance. Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by CSMHSA and RC-SCFD.

Additionally, the 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 hazards and hazardous materials, including transport, use, and disposal. In addition to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions identified above, the following General Plan goal, policies, and action would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation:
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-25
 Goal ESPS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.  Policy ESPS-5.1: Prohibit uses involving the manufacturing of hazardous materials throughout the city. Hazardous materials are defined in Chapter 6.95, Section 25501 0-1 of the Health and Safety Code. This policy applies only to the direct manufacture of hazardous substances. It does not apply to the storage or use of such materials in conjunction with permitted commercial and industrial uses.
 Policy ESPS-5.4: Mitigate indoor air intrusion potential in areas of new development or redevelopment where the property is located above known volatile compound plumes.  Policy ESPS-5.7: Prohibit new non-residential uses that are known to release or emit toxic waste at levels that are harmful to human health while continuing to allow life science, research and development, medical, and other necessary services such as dry cleaners.  Action ESPS-5.6: Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for hazardous impacts during operation.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Demolition
Future development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project may involve demolition of existing buildings and structures associated with a specific development site. Typical hazardous materials of concern for existing older structures in the EIR Study Area include asbestos, lead, mold, PCBs, and radon.

State agencies, in conjunction with the USEPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for asbestos-containing materials. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations; medical evaluation and monitoring are required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. The regulations include warnings and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, state, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos. Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified in the BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). California Government Code Sections 1529 and 1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection and good working practice by workers exposed to lead and ACM.

Additionally, the 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 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-26 JANUARY 2025
consider impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, including transport, use, and disposal. The General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified above would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during demolition.

Therefore, with compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified above, hazardous impacts during demolition would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Pipelines
As noted in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, four hazardous gas transmission pipelines are located in the EIR study area. Although there are hazardous pipelines throughout the EIR Study Area, all development would have to adhere to Title 8, Section 1541 of the CCR that regulate the new construction, excavation, and/or new utility lines within 10 feet or crossing existing high-pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum pipelines, or electrical lines greater than 60,000 volts. New construction, excavation, and/or utility lines will be designed and constructed in accordance with the CCR. Therefore, impacts associated with pipelines would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-2 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Residential uses, some civic uses such as schools and parks, and some commercial uses utilize only small amounts of hazardous materials—such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides—and mostly or entirely for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Use of such small amounts of hazardous materials would not pose substantial hazards to the public or the environment through accidental releases.

Businesses handling reporting quantities of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials would maintain business plans including: procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release, procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance, contact information for company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.

For known or potential contaminated sites, prior to issuing a grading or building permit, the City would require an assessment of potential hazards and coordination with the Responsible Agency. Responsible Agency includes San Mateo County Environmental Health, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), State Water Resource Control Board and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If the Responsible Agency determines the development project could pose a human health or environmental risk, the City would require that such hazards be managed appropriately with oversight by the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-27
Responsible Agency. Management techniques could include, but would not be limited to, actions such as removal of the contaminants (remediation), site controls to reduce exposure (e.g., capping soils, installation of soil vapor barriers), or administrative mechanisms (deed restrictions).

The City also has disaster preparedness training programs available and a Community Emergency Response Team training program which aims to prepare individuals, first responders, hazardous materials organizations more in-depth, crucial information about fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, disaster medical operations, and more. In the case of an accidental release, the City also has an established Emergency Alert system titled “SMC ALERT” aimed to alert individuals of the San Mateo County communities of hazards in the area.

As described in impact discussion HAZ-1, the 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 hazards and hazardous materials, including accidental release. In addition to the General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified in impact discussion HAZ-1, the following General Plan goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to release of hazardous materials:
 Goal ESPS-5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.  Policy ESPS-5.8: Require the preparation of emergency response plans as part of use applications for all large generators and users of hazardous waste as required by federal law.  Policy ESPS-5.9: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on hazards materials.
 Policy ESPS-5.10: Expand community engagement on remediation. Engage community members in the remediation of toxic sites and the permitting and monitoring of potentially hazardous industrial uses.
 Action ESPS-5.1: Provide on-going training for appropriate City personnel in hazardous materials, response, and handling.
 Action ESPS-5.2: Disseminate information on proper disposal of household hazardous waste.  Action ESPS-5.3: Coordinate with waste disposal services and other government agencies to increase the convenience of proper disposal of household hazardous waste.  Action ESPS-5.4: Evaluate opportunities to participate in household hazardous waste collection services.

Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan goal, policies, and actions, would ensure impacts related to release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-28 JANUARY 2025
HAZ-3 The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The EIR Study Area is currently served by two school districts, with a total of eleven K-12 schools (6 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 1 charter school, and 2 high schools). All businesses within the EIR Study Area that handle and/or store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities (i.e., 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases) must file a hazardous materials business plan with the CUPA. As described in impact discussions HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, while some future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project could be reasonably expected to handle hazardous materials or generate hazardous emissions, the storage, use, and handling of these materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations.

As described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, some land uses are considered more sensitive to airborne hazardous materials than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved.

Because sensitive population groups include children, further CEQA evaluation of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school, private or public would be required for future projects.

Compliance with existing plans requirements regarding ongoing environmental review and management of hazardous materials would ensure that future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to adjacent land uses that may contain sensitive receptors. Therefore, the potential for emission of hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school during construction and operation of future development would be considered less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-4 The proposed project would include land uses located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, 35 hazardous materials sites are open or active hazardous waste sites in the EIR Study Area. These sites are undergoing remedial actions under the supervision of the RWQCB or DTSC. In the EIR Study Area, hazardous waste sites are also evaluated locally by the CSMHSA and San Mateo Hazardous Materials team.

Development on other sites in the EIR Study Area may result in hazardous materials impacts. However, properties contaminated by hazardous substances are regulated at the local, State, and federal level and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigations and remediation. For example, compliance with the CERCLA, RCRA, CCR Title 22, and related requirements would remedy all potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Additionally, as described in impact 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-29
discussion HAZ-1, the 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 hazards and hazardous materials, including accidental release. The General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified in impact discussion HAZ-1 would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to development on hazard materials sites.

Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, as well as the General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would ensure that impacts related to development on hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-5 The proposed project would not, for a project located within an airport land use plan, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Airport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft as well as hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. With proper land use planning, aircraft safety risks can be reduced, primarily by avoiding incompatible land uses. Pursuant to Section 21096 of the Public Resources Code, the lead agency must consider whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area. The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. With adherence to these guidelines, high concentrations of people are not exposed to potential airplane accidents along runways or near airports while airplanes are departing and arriving. There are also guidelines on the placement of housing, schools, and other sensitive land uses near airports because of the noise pollution caused by airplanes (see also Chapter 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR).

As stated in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, the San Carlos Airport is located within the EIR Study Area. The proposed 2045 General Plan Reset would allow future development to occur on sites within 2 miles of a public airport, which could result in a safety hazard. However, future development within the AIA of the airport would be required to adhere to the regulations of the FAA and San Carlos Airport ALUCP. Developers or other parties that propose buildings or alterations to buildings greater than 200 feet in height (above grade), or structures within 10,000 linear feet of the airport that would penetrate a 50:1 plane sloping up and away from the airport runway, must complete and submit FAA Form 7460-1 to the FAA.11.

As described in impact discussion HAZ-1, the 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 hazards and hazardous materials, including airport hazards. The following General Plan goal, policy, and action would serve to minimize risks associated with the San Carlos Airport:
 Goal ESPS-6: Minimize risks associated with operations at the San Carlos Airport. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-30 JANUARY 2025
 Policy ESPS-6.1: Maintain land use and development in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport that are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria and guidelines contained in the adopted Airport/Land Use Compatibility Plan for the environs of San Carlos Airport, including noise, safety, height, and navigation easement requirements.  Action ESPS-6.1: Submit proposed land use policy actions (general plans/amendments, specific plans/amendments, rezonings, etc.) and related development plans, if any, that affect property located within the Area B portion of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for San Carlos Airport, to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review/action, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), prior to final action by the City.

Compliance with the requirements of the FAA and San Carlos Airport ALUCP and implementation of the General Plan goal, policy, and action identified above would ensure impacts from airport hazards would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-6 The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Though no EOP can prevent all death and destruction, good plans carried out by knowledgeable and well-trained personnel will minimize losses. As indicated in SCMC Section 2.28.080, the City of San Carlos Disaster Council is responsible for the development of the City’s emergency plan. San Carlos’s EOP establishes the emergency organization and assigns tasks and general procedures. It provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements using the SMC ALERT system.
12 During an emergency, CAL FIRE and RC-SCFD would provide emergency services in the EIR Study Area. Furthermore, the EIR Study Area is covered under the San Mateo County MJLHMP and EOP which provide strategies to address emergencies in the EIR Study Area.

Regional access to and from the EIR Study Area includes I-280 on the western end of the EIR Study Area, and SR-82 and HWY-101, which run parallel to each other at the northeastern end of the EIR Study Area.

Several arterials in the EIR Study Area funnel traffic to larger arterials and freeways. Several major roadways and transit routes within and adjacent to the EIR Study Area are crossed by one or more disaster prone areas—including very high fire hazard severity zones, 100-year flood zones, liquefaction zones, landslide hazard zones, and other hazards. Any of these disasters can cause damage to transportation infrastructure, preventing or impeding access by emergency responders and evacuation by residents.

The proposed 2045 General Plan Reset would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. 12 San Carlos, City of. Emergency Preparedness.
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/community/emergency_preparedness.php, accessed October 25, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-31
Future development projects would be required not to interfere with operation of the City’s Emergency Operations Center and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination and cooperation between such agencies.

San Carlos has also implemented Government Code Section 65302, which requires that the Safety Element of a general plan address evacuation routes. The Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset includes information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes, per SB 99. The ESPS Element also contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, including emergency response. In addition to the General Plan goal, policies, and actions identified in impact discussion HAZ-2 and impact discussion WILD-1 in Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft EIR, the following General Plan goal, policy, and action would serve to minimize risks associated with emergency response and evacuation:
 Goal ESPS-7: Continue effective emergency response procedures to ensure public safety in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
 Policy ESPS-7.2: Preserve a Basic Emergency Operation Plan consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS).
 Policy ESPS-7.3: Maintain City Hall as the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in San Carlos and provide for fully functional back up EOC for City staff.  Policy ESPS-7.4: Coordinate the preparation for natural and man-made disasters with the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services, neighboring jurisdictions, and other governmental agencies.
 Policy ESPS-7.5: Inform the public about disaster preparedness by providing information on supplies, training, evacuation routes, communication systems, and shelter locations.  Policy ESPS-7.6: Make available to the community, programs and resources relating to disaster preparedness.
 Policy ESPS-7.7: Support the efforts of neighborhood and civic organizations to prepare for disasters if City resources are not available.
 Policy ESPS-7.8: Identify and develop communication systems, evacuation methods, shelter locations and other services for special needs populations.  Policy ESPS-7.9: Evaluate safety service limitations on an annual basis to provide for adequate levels of service.
 Policy ESPS-7.10: Identify potential emergency routes and suggest methods for operational needs for first responders.
 Policy ESPS-7.11: Establish the capability to re-locate critical emergency response facilities such as fire, police, and essential services facilities, if needed, in areas that minimize their exposure to flooding, seismic effects, fire, or explosion.
 Policy ESPS-7.12: Develop a procedure to quantify community emergency preparedness levels. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-32 JANUARY 2025
 Action ESPS-7.1: Evaluate the Emergency Operation Plan on an annual basis and revise as needed to promote disaster preparedness.
 Action ESPS-7.2: Coordinate emergency response procedures with acute care medical facilities in San Mateo County to ensure adequate preparedness for hospital patients and staff.  Action ESPS-7.3: Participate in regional disaster event simulations semi-annually by using the primary EOC and methods for implementing a back-up EOC.  Action ESPS-7.4: Create a back-up EOC for City staff. Enter into a shared EOC agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction or County in the event City Hall is rendered inoperable as an EOC.  Action ESPS-7.5: Participate in San Mateo County OES preparedness exercises and disaster simulations.
 Action ESPS-7.6: Encourage City employees through a volunteer program to obtain training in disaster preparedness and basic first aid skills.
 Action ESPS-7.7: Maintain and enhance the community disaster preparedness programs.  Action ESPS-7.8: Identify the need for community awareness and education programs for residents. Develop programs to respond to identified needs.  Action ESPS-7.9: Disseminate semi-annually, disaster preparedness information to residents through the city web site, newsletters, e-notify, newspaper articles, or other methods.  Action ESPS-7.10: Make available multi-language disaster preparedness information.  Action ESPS-7.1: Identify and program for emergency supplies through the EOC program in public parks.

Compliance with applicable regulations, emergency and evacuation plans, and the General Plan goals, policies, and actions identified above would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-7 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative hazards and hazardous material impacts in the area.

The area considered for cumulative impacts is San Mateo County, which is the service area for the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division, the affected CUPA. Other development projects throughout the EIR Study Area would use, store, transport, and dispose of increased amounts of hazardous materials, and thus could pose substantial risks to the public and the environment. However, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by other projects would conform with regulations of multiple agencies as described in Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Future development within the San Carlos Airport ALUCP boundaries would be required to adhere to the regulations of the ALCUP, as well as the FAA. Cumulative projects also have the potential to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; however, all development 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-33
would be required to comply with the provisions of the local, State, and federal regulations for emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-34 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER 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 hydrology and water 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.

4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. The Clean Water Act (CWA) (codified at 33 United States Code Sections 1251 to 1376) of 1972 is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the EPA, as well as the states. Various elements of the CWA, which address water quality, are discussed below.

Permits to dredge or fill waters of the United States are administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the CWA. “Waters of the United States” are defined as territorial seas and traditional navigable waters, perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters, lakes and ponds and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The regulatory branch of the USACE is responsible for implementing and enforcing Section 404 of the CWA and issuing permits. Any activity that discharges fill material and/or requires excavation in waters of the United States must obtain a Section 404 permit. Before issuing the permit, the USACE requires that an analysis be conducted to demonstrate that the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Also, the USACE is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act before it may issue an individual Section 404 permit.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, every applicant for a Section 404 permit that may result in a discharge to a water body must first obtain State Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will comply with State water quality standards. Certifications are issued in conjunction with USACE Section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharges. In addition, an application for Individual Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements must be submitted for any activity that would result in the placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the State that are not jurisdictional to the USACE, such as isolated wetlands, to ensure that the proposed activity complies with State water quality standards. In California, the authority to either grant water quality certification or waive the requirement 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-2 JANUARY 2025
is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).

Under federal law, the USEPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires the USEPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. In California, the USEPA has delegated authority to the SWRCB and its RWQCBs to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.

When water quality does not meet CWA standards and compromises designated beneficial uses of a receiving water body, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that water body be identified and listed as “impaired”. Once a water body has been designated as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards, with a factor of safety included. Once established, the TMDL allocates the loads among current and future pollutant sources to the water body.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities.

Under the NPDES Program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States are required to obtain a NPDES permit. Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. In California, the NPDES permit program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs.

Under Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, the permittees use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows. This goal is accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development techniques. In addition, projects that create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces must comply with the hydromodification requirements specified in the C.3.g provisions of the MS4 permit. These requirements include implementing stormwater control measures 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-3
such that post-project runoff must match pre-project runoff from 10 percent of the pre-project 2-year flow rate up to the pre-project 10-year peak flow.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a 1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year.

As required by the FEMA regulations, all development constructed within the Special Flood Hazard Zone (as delineated on the FIRM) must be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation level. The term “development” is defined by FEMA as any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment or materials. Per these regulations, if development in these areas occurs, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed prior to the start of development and must demonstrate that the development does not cause any rise in base flood elevation levels, because no rise is permitted within regulatory floodways. Upon completion of any development that changes existing Special Flood Hazard Area boundaries, the National Flood Insurance Program directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision, as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data becomes available.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the USACE requires permits for activities involving the obstruction of the navigable capacity of any waters of the United States or the construction of any structures in or over navigable waters of the United States, including ports, canals, navigable rivers, or other waters. “Navigable waters” under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are defined as “those waters of the United States that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” Pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the USACE administers this regulatory program separate from the Section 404 program. A Section 10 permit may be required for structures or work outside the limits of navigable waters if the structure or work affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of the water body.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides the basic authority for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to evaluate impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. This act requires that all federal agencies consult with the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and State wildlife agencies (i.e., the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-4 JANUARY 2025
or CDFW) for activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water. Under this act, the USFWS has responsibility for reviewing and commenting on all water resources projects. For example, it would provide consultation to the USACE prior to issuance of a Section 404 permit.

If a project may result in the “incidental take” of a listed species, an incidental take permit is required. An incidental take permit allows a developer to proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects but that results in the “incidental taking” of a listed species. A habitat conservation plan must also accompany an application for an incidental take permit. The purpose of a habitat conservation plan is to ensure that the effects of the permitted action or listed species are adequately minimized and mitigated.

State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. This act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of an RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary State agency responsible for the protection of California’s water quality and groundwater supplies. The RWQCBs carry out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. The City of San Carlos is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2), which regulates surface water and groundwater quality in the watershed that encompasses the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Santa Clara (north of Morgan Hill), San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano.

The Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements, NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. Other State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the California Department of Health Services for drinking water regulations, the CDFW, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.

State Water Resources Control Board
In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues for the State. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA. It also regulates public drinking water systems, NPDES wastewater discharges, water quality monitoring, water recycling programs, landfill disposal, water rights, and implements drought restrictions.

SWRCB General Construction Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-5
risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.

Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMPs) and prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a sampling program to ensure compliance with water quality standards, and on-site collection of samples and inspection of BMPs during a qualifying precipitation event.

In addition, the City has the authority to require submittal of an interim and final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), if required by the City Engineer or Building Official. The ESCP must describe erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented during the construction phase as well as final stabilization control measures as well as the calculation of maximum surface runoff amounts and sediment yield. This requirement may apply to projects that are less than one acre in size if they require grading permits or building permits that could result in non-stormwater discharges to a storm drain.

Projects subject to the SWRCB Construction General Permit may include the ESCP provisions within the SWPPP.

SWRCB Board General Industrial Permit
The Statewide General permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ and amended by 2015-0122-DWQ (2018) implements the federally required storm water regulations in California for storm water associated with industrial activities that discharge to waters of the United States. This regulation covers facilities that are required by federal regulations or by the RWQCBs to obtain an NPDES permit. Dischargers are required to eliminate non-storm water discharges, develop SWPPPs that include BMPs, conduct monitoring of stormwater runoff, and submit all compliance documents via the SWRCB’s SMARTS program.

SWRCB Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to control trash and Part 1, Trash Provisions, of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. They are collectively referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California and include a landuse-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trash-generation rates. Areas such as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation stations are considered priority land uses. There are two compliance tracks for Phase I and Phase II MS4 permittees:
 Track 1: Permittees must install, operate, and maintain a network of certified full capture systems in storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-6 JANUARY 2025
 Track 2: Permittees must implement a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multibenefit projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment methods that have the same effectiveness as Track 1 methods.

The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement their provisions. Full compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit, and permittees must also meet interim milestones such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year. The amendment mandates that the City needs to install catch basin filters on all City catch basins by December 2, 2030.1 California Water Code Section 13751: Water Wells
Section 13751 of the Water Code requires a Well Completion Report (WCR) to be completed by each person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well or abandons or modifies an existing well. The WCR should be filed with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) within 60 days of the date that construction, alteration, or destruction of a well is completed.2 Completed WCRs are sent to and maintained at the DWR regional office that serves the area where the well is located.

California Coastal Act of 1976
The California Coastal Act of 1976 established three designated coastal management agencies to plan and regulate the use of land and water in the coastal zone: the California Coastal Commission, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the California Coastal Conservancy. Under California’s federally approved Coastal Management Program, the California Coastal Commission manages development along the California coast except for San Francisco Bay, which is overseen by the BCDC. The City of San Carlos is under the jurisdiction of the BCDC for all land within 100 feet of the shoreline. The mission of the California Coastal Conservancy is to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources and provide shoreline access. Additional information on the BCDC is discussed under Regional Regulations, below.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the streambed alteration agreement process under Sections 1601 to 1606 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or 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. 1 State Water Resources Quality Control Board, September 2022, Storm Water Program - Trash Implementation Program. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementation.html, accessed April 4, 2023. 2 California Department of Water Resources, 2024, Well Completion Reports, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Wells/Well-Completion-Reports, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-7
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act includes the State of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), which requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances. The MWELO was revised in July 2015 via Executive Order B-29-15 to address the ongoing drought and build resiliency for future droughts. State law requires all land use agencies, which includes cities and counties, to adopt a WELO that is at least as efficient as the MWELO prepared by the DWR. The 2015 revisions to the MWELO improve water conservation in the landscaping sector by promoting efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The revisions increase water efficiency by requiring more efficient irrigation systems, incentives for grey water usage, improvements in on-site stormwater capture, and limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in high-water-use plants and turf. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the MWELO. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. The previous landscape size threshold for new development projects was 2,500 square feet.3 The size threshold for rehabilitated landscapes has not changed and remains at 2,500 square feet.

Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2) addresses regionwide water quality issues through the creation and triennial update of the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan was adopted in 1995 and most recently updated to reflect the Basin Plan amendments adopted by the State Board up through April 17, 2024.
4 This Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of the State waters within Region 2, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan.

The Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, as adopted by the SWRCB in 1995 and last amended in 2018, also provides water quality principles and guidelines to prevent water quality degradation and protect the beneficial uses of waters of enclosed bays and estuaries.5 The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also administers the MS4 permit for San Mateo County and the municipalities within San Mateo County, including the City of San Carlos.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission The California Coastal Act carries out its mandate locally through the BCDC. BCDC fulfills this mission through the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan), an enforceable plan that guides 3 County of San Mateo, 2024, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, https://www.smcgov.org/planning/water-efficientlandscape-ordinance-welo, accessed October 11, 2024. 4 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Basin Planning, 2024, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html#basinplan, accessed October 11, 2024. 5 State Water Resources Control Board, 1995, Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, as Adopted by Resolution No. 95-84 on November 16, 1995, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/1995/rs1995_0084.pdf, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-8 JANUARY 2025
the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline.6 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, biological resources, and recreation are discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, and Chapter 4.12, Parks and Recreation, of this Draft EIR, respectively.

The current BCDC policy allows for the protection of existing and planned development from flooding by the placement of fill, encourages innovative means of dealing with flood danger, and states that local governments will determine how best to deal with development projects inland of BCDC’s jurisdiction, which extends 100 feet inland from the shoreline. The provisions of BCDC’s Bay Plan do not apply outside BCDC’s jurisdiction for purposes of implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).7
The new BCDC policies require sea level rise risk assessments to be conducted when planning shoreline areas or designing large shoreline projects within BCDC’s jurisdiction. Risk assessments are not required for repairs of existing facilities, interim projects, small projects that do not increase risks to public safety, and infill projects within existing urbanized areas. Projects within the shoreline band, the area within 100 feet of the shoreline, need only address risks to public access.

As a permitting authority along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, BCDC is responsible for granting or denying permits for any proposed fill, extraction of materials, or change in the use of any water, land, or structure within BCDC’s jurisdiction. Permits may be granted or denied only after public hearings and after the process for review and comment has been completed by the City. BCDC will approve the permit if it is determined that the project is in accordance with defined standards for use of the shoreline, provisions for public access, and advisory review of appearance.

Projects within BCDC jurisdiction that involve bay fill must be consistent with the policies of the BCDC’s Bay Plan on the safety of fills and shoreline protection. Land elevation changes caused by tectonic activity or consolidation/compaction of soft soils, such as bay muds, is variable around the San Francisco Bay. Consequently, some parts of the San Francisco Bay may experience a greater relative rise in sea level than other areas. According to BCDC policies, new projects built on fill or near the shoreline should be set back from the edge of the shore so that the project will not be subject to dynamic wave energy; be built so the bottom floor of structures will be above a 100-year flood elevation that takes future sea level rise into account for the expected life of the project; be specifically designed to tolerate periodic flooding; or employ other effective means of addressing the impacts of future sea level rise and storm activity.
6 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. 7 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2021, San Francisco Bay Plan Climate Change Policy Guidance https://bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/San-Francisco-Bay-Plan-Climate-Change-PolicyGuidance.pdf, accessed October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-9
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
Municipal stormwater discharge in the City of San Carlos is subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) of the MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018 and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Provision C.3 of the MRP requirements applies to all new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit also mandates that new development and redevelopment projects must: (1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment on-site; (2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and nonstormwater discharge; and (3) minimize the rate and volume of stormwater runoff under postdevelopment conditions. Low-impact development (LID) methods are the primary mechanisms for implementing such controls.

New development projects must design and construct stormwater treatment systems that capture a percentage of the flow rate or volume from a specified storm event based on the sizing criteria described in the C.3 provisions of the MRP. The treatment systems use LID measures that include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment/bioretention.

In order to comply with Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, regulated projects would be required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) and C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of San Carlos. The SCP must be prepared under the direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects.

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), the County of San Mateo, and 20 incorporated cities within the county, which share a common NPDES permit. This partnership also relies on each of the municipalities to implement local stormwater pollution prevention and control activities for its own local storm drain systems. The SMCWPPP’s Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP) outlines priorities, key elements, strategies, and evaluation methods to implement the SMCWPPP. The comprehensive program includes pollution reduction activities for construction sites, industrial sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations. The SRP also includes a public education effort, target pollutant reduction strategies, and watershed assessment and monitoring. The SRP, in conjunction with the NPDES permit adopted by the Water Board, is designed to enable SMCWPPP to meet the requirements of the CWA.

Post-construction stormwater quality requirements pursuant to the SMCWPPP are described in the C.3 Regulated Projects Guide (Version 1.0) issued in January 2020.8 The C.3 Regulated Projects Guide includes instructions for implementing site design measures, source controls, stormwater treatment measures, construction site controls, and low-impact development measures. 8 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, January 2020, C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, https://www.flowstobay.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SMCWPPP-C.3-Regulated-Project-Guide-High-Res_021220_0.pdf, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-10 JANUARY 2025
San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters. The San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), updated in 2021 in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000 (DMA 2000), provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these hazards. The San Carlos Jurisdictional Annex of the MJHMP provides an assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities, and a set of mitigation actions for San Carlos specifically while considering the results from the countywide effort. In the context of an MJHMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including flooding, sea level rise, and dam failure. Mitigation actions related to flood, sea level rise, and dam failure in the San Carlos Jurisdictional Annex of the MJHMP include participating in the plan maintenance protocols, implement floodplain management programs, and developing a Continuity of Operations Plan.
9 The MJHMP must be reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster relief funding. As part of this process, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reviews all local hazard mitigation plans in accordance with DMA 2000 regulations and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide. As part of the proposed project, the MJHMP is adopted in its entirety into the proposed Safety Element by reference.

San Mateo County Storm Water Resources Plan
The San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP) is a comprehensive document that addresses specific stormwater runoff issues in the county with a watershed-based approach. The main goals of the SRP are to identify and prioritize opportunities to better utilize stormwater as a resource in San Mateo County through a detailed analysis of watershed processes, surface and groundwater resources, input from stakeholders and the public, and analysis of multiple benefits that can be achieved through strategically planned stormwater management projects.10 These projects aim to capture and manage stormwater more sustainably, reduce flooding and pollution associated with runoff, improve biological functioning of plants, soils, and other natural infrastructure, and provide many community benefits, including cleaner air and water and enhanced aesthetic value of local streets and neighborhoods. Senate Bill 985 (Pavley, 2014) requires SRPs to be developed to be eligible for funding from future State bond measures for stormwater and dry weather capture projects.11 9 County of San Mateo, 2021, 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Volume 2, https://www.smcgov.org/media/53476/download?inline=, accessed on October 11, 2024. 10 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo, February 2017, Stormwater Resource Plan for San Mateo County, https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SMC-SRP-Report-FINAL-1.pdf, accessed October 11, 2024. 11 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo, 2024, San Mateo Storm Water Resources Plan, https://ccag.ca.gov/srp/, accessed October 11, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-11
San Mateo County Flood & Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) In April 2018, the C/CAG Countywide Water Coordination Committee proposed the formation of a countywide agency to address sea level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, and regional stormwater infrastructure. Assembly Bill 825 was signed into law in September 2019 and, on January 1, 2020, the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, more commonly known as OneShoreline, was formed.

With startup funding from San Mateo County and 20 incorporated cities, OneShoreline has initiated several projects to protect against the impact of sea level rise. In terms of financial losses due to climate change, San Mateo County is the most vulnerable county in California. By 2100, it is estimated that over 40 percent of the land could be affected.12 OneShoreline is working with several cities within San Mateo County to update their General Plans, Specific Plans, and zoning ordinances to address future conditions brought on by climate change. They also are preparing a Planning Guidance Policy that can be used by cities and San Mateo County to account for climate-driven flooding, stormwater capture, groundwater rise, and sea level rise in planning documents, processes, and approvals.

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 4.9.3, 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 hydrology and water quality:
 Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, adopts the requirements of the MWELO.
 Chapter 12.08, Grading and Excavation, requires a grading permit to be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of construction activities and must include an interim and final erosion and sediment control plan. In addition, no grading shall be conducted in such a manner as to alter the established gradient of natural drainage channels in a manner to cause excessive erosion or flooding.  Chapter 13.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, prohibits the discharge of nonstormwater discharges to the City storm drain system. All projects that will or may result in pollutants entering the City storm drain system must comply with Section 13.14.110 to reduce such 12 San Mateo County, 2024, OneShoreline, https://oneshoreline.org/frequently-asked-questions/ accessed October 15,2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-12 JANUARY 2025
pollutants, including standards for parking lots and similar structures, and BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects. In addition, this chapter provides for watercourse protection to ensure that all watercourses are kept and maintained reasonably free from pollutants and flow restrictions and for the maintenance of healthy bank vegetation.  Chapter 15.56, Flood Damage Prevention, promotes public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. Nonresidential construction shall either be elevated to or above the base flood elevation or be floodproofed so that the below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water or have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.
 Chapter 17.16.270, Storm Drainage Facilities, requires the subdivider to dedicate rights-of-way for storm drainage purposes that conform to the boundary lines of any natural watercourse, channel, stream, or creek that traverses the subdivision.
 Chapter 18.18.080, Water Efficient Landscaping, establishes water-efficient landscape and irrigation guidelines to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and minimize runoff with the use of automatic control systems.

City of San Carlos Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan The City of San Carlos prepared a Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan (SDMP) in April 2017.13 The SDMP describes the City’s stormwater and drainage system and identified causes of flooding within the system to assist in development systemwide improvements. Hydraulic modeling of the citywide drainage system was conducted, and the results were used to develop alternative improvement projects to improve system capacity. These alternatives were ranked to develop a prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that addresses capacity issues and seeks to prioritize the more severe flooding problems.

City of San Carlos Green Infrastructure Plan
Adopted in 2019, the Green Infrastructure Plan describes how the City will, over time, transition its existing “gray” (i.e., traditional) infrastructure to “green” infrastructure. This document also provides guidance to meet stormwater pollutant load reduction goals and creates a process for prioritizing the integration of Green Infrastructure (GI) into CIP projects. Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soil, and other elements to capture, treat, infiltrate and slow urban runoff. GI measures could include stormwater planters, rain garden, tree wells, pervious pavement, infiltration systems, and green roofs.14 13 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017. 14 City of San Carlos, 2019, Green Infrastructure Plan, https://cms3.revize.com/revize/sancarlos/SanCarlos-GI-PlanFINAL06-2019-Rev2.pdf, accessed on October 11, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-13

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Topography and Climate
The EIR Study Area extends from about 800 feet above sea level in the southwestern hills to sea level on the northeastern edge of the City adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Most of the City is hilly, with flatter areas to the northeast with elevations ranging from 40 feet above sea level or less.

San Carlos has a Mediterranean-type climate, characterized by dry relatively cool summers and wet mild winters. The area receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 17.7 inches per year, with the rainy period occurring for 7.3 months October and May.
15 Due to two gaps in the Santa Cruz Mountains
to the west, weather from the Pacific Ocean can result in gusty afternoon winds and fog in the late afternoon through early morning in the summer.

Regional Hydrology
San Carlos is located within the San Francisco Bay watershed, which is further divided into subwatersheds. The EIR Study Area is located within five watersheds, as shown in Figure 4.9-1, San Carlos Watersheds. The five watersheds include Cordilleras Creek, Brittan Creek, Pulgas Creek, Lower Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek.16
Pulgas and Brittan Creeks are the two main creeks that are entirely within the City of San Carlos. The lengths of these creeks are mostly unhardened channels, with hardened channels in the upper reaches and the lower flatlands in eastern San Carlos, 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 the Smith Slough, south of Bair Island. The Brittan Creek, Pulgas, and Lower Pulgas Watersheds encompass approximately 824 acres, 1,083 acres, and 295 acres, respectively. 17 Cordilleras Creek, the longest of the four creeks, is mostly outside the city limit, defining San Carlos’ south-southeast border shared with the City of Redwood City. Cordilleras Creek, like the combined Pulgas/Brittan Creek, also flows into San Francisco Bay via Smith Slough. The upper reaches of the creeks are generally natural. Also, considerable portions of the creeks’ lower reaches, mainly in east San Carlos, have been channelized for conveyance of varying flow capacities. The Cordilleras Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 2,230 acres.18
Belmont Creek Watershed is approximately 511 acres and is shared with the City of Belmont to the north. Belmont Creek traverses east through San Carlos, and then flows northward east of Highway 101 and flows into the West Redwood Shores outfall and to Belmont Slough and O’Neill Slough.19 15 Weather Spark, 2024, Climate and Average Weather Year Round in San Carlos, https://weatherspark.com/y/556/ Average-Weather-in-San-Carlos-California-United-States-Year-Round#google_vignette, accessed on October 11, 2024. 16 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017. 17 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017. 18 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017. 19 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017.

BELMONT CREEK

WATERSHED
LOWER

PULGAS CREEK

WATERSHED

CORDILLERAS

CREEK WATERSHED

BRITTAN

CREEK WATERSHED

PULGAS CREEK

WATERSHED
Belmont
Channel
Smith Slough
Steinberger
Slough
Pond
Howard Ave
42Nd Ave
Harbor Blvd
W inslow St
Saint Francis Way
Redwood Shores Pky
Jeffer son Ave
Hopkins Ave
Ruth Ave
Old Cr Rd
Whipple Ave
Bauer Dr
Ralston Ave
Industrial Rd
Alameda
Laurel St
Hudson St
Crestview Dr
Valota Rd
Club Dr
Alameda
De Las
P
ulgas
Brittan Ave
Bridge Pky
Wellington
D r
BeverlyDr
Industrial Way
Alameda
Edgewood Rd
SouthRd
Marine Pky
Far
m
Hill Blvd
BroadwaySt
Brewster Ave
Chula VistaDr
Canada Rd
C
pi
ria
n
B
i
lv d
Notre Dame A ve
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Hiller St
Roosevelt Ave
Pacific Blvd
ElmSt
Ce dar St
San Carlos Ave
Industrial Way
Shelford Ave
Holly St
Molitor Rd
Marine View St
Middle R d
Cordilleras Rd
Stafford St
Stanley St
Jefferson Ave
Pearl Ave
Devonshire B lvd
Mills Ave
Upland
Ave
Mele n dy Dr
Cordilleras Ave
Broadway
Hill
cre s t Rd
Arb or Ave
82 82
/(101
280
Figure 4.9-1
San Carlos Watersheds
Source: GHD, 2016; City of San Carlos, 2024; PlaceWorks, 2024. 0 0.5 1
Miles
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Creeks and Waterways
Northeast Area Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
2 0 4 5 G E N E R A L P L A N R E S E T D R A F T E I R

P L A C E W O R K S
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-15
Storm Drainage System
Stormwater runoff in the City of San Carlos is conveyed to San Francisco Bay via a network of 56 miles of storm drains, creeks and drainage channels, and three pump stations.20 The drainage pipes range in size between 4-inch to 72-inch diameter. San Carlos is responsible for maintenance of culverts under roadways and creek segments with easements. Inaccessible creek areas and upstream reaches in the hills are generally on private property and respective property owners are responsible for maintenance.

The City addresses flooding constraints through their CIP, which prioritizes improvement projects for the drainage system.

Groundwater
Most of the City of San Carlos is within the San Mateo Plain Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin.21 However, groundwater is not used for municipal water supply in San Carlos. 22 The
southwestern portion of the City in the hills is not within a designated groundwater basin. The San Mateo Plain Subbasin is designated as a very low priority basin and therefore is not regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. This is because there is very little groundwater use in this basin (less than 2,700 acre-feet/year) and it is mostly due to private well pumping in the subbasin areas south of the City Limits (Redwood City and Menlo Park).

The EIR Study Area is served primarily by three water providers: California Water Service Mid-Peninsula District (Cal Water-MPS), Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) and the City of Redwood City. Cal WaterMPS provides water service for most of the EIR Study Area, while MPWD provides water to a small northern portion of the City between El Camino Real and Highway 101. There is one small area within the EIR Study Area northwest of the intersection of Edgewood Road and Alameda de las Pulgas that is provided with potable water by the City of Redwood City. However, this area does not use groundwater and are already developed with residential properties. Cal Water-MPS and MPWD supplies the City with water purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The SFPUC’s water supplies consist of surface water imported from the Sierra Nevada via the Hetch Hetchy Project and local surface water from the San Francisco Bay Region.

Shallow groundwater is typically encountered in San Carlos at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet below ground surface (bgs).23 If construction dewatering is required with future development within the EIR Study Area, an application for a groundwater waste discharge permit must be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval. Required information includes the source and estimated discharge volume, proposed discharge point to the sewer system and list of contaminants (if present) and expected concentration. The applicant may be required to collect groundwater samples representative of the 20 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017. 21 San Mateo County, 2019, San Mateo County GIS open data: San Mateo Plain Subbasin, https://datasmcmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/san-mateo-plain-subbasin?geometry=-122.296%2C37.491%2C-122.242%2C37.503, accessed October 15, 2024.
22 California Water Service, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Mid-Peninsula District. 23 Gregg Drilling, 2024, Northern California Groundwater Depth Table. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-16 JANUARY 2025
water quality anticipated in the discharge if construction dewatering occurs in an area of known or potential groundwater contamination.

Water Quality
Surface water quality is affected by point-source and non-point source pollutants. Point source pollutants are emitted at a specific point, such as a pipe, and nonpoint-source pollutants are typically generated by surface runoff from diffuse sources, such as streets, paved areas, and landscaped areas.

Point-source pollutants are controlled with pollutant discharge regulations or water discharge requirements. Nonpoint-source pollutants are more difficult to monitor and control, although they are important contributors to surface water quality in urban areas.

Stormwater runoff pollutants vary based on land use, topography, the amount of impervious surface, the amount and frequency of rainfall, and irrigation practices. Runoff in developed areas typically contains oil, grease, and metals accumulated in streets, driveways, parking lots, and rooftops, as well as pesticides, herbicides, particulate matter, nutrients, animal waste, and other oxygen-demanding substances from landscaped areas. The highest pollutant concentrations usually occur at the beginning of the wet season during the “first flush,” when early rainfall flushes out pollutants that have accumulated on hardscape surfaces during the preceding dry months.

The San Francisco Bay RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Basin Plan and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within San Mateo County and San Carlos. The beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the EIR Study Area are listed in Table 4.9-1, Designated Beneficial Uses of Water Bodies in the EIR Study Area.

TABLE 4.9-1 DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER BODIES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA Water Body Designated Beneficial Use
Surface Water
Belmont Slough EST, RARE, SPWN, WILD, REC-1, REC-2
Belmont Creek WARM, WILD, REC-1, REC-2
Steinberger Slough EST, RARE, WILD, REC-1, REC-2
Smith Slough EST, RARE, WILD, REC-1, REC-2
Pulgas Creek WARM, WILD, REC-1, REC-2
Cordilleras Creek WARM, WILD, REC-1, REC-2
San Francisco Bay Lower IND, COMM, SHELL, EST, MIGR, RARE, SPWN, WILD, REC-1, REC-2, NAV Groundwater
Santa Clara Valley, San Mateo Plain MUN, PROC, IND, AGR (Potential Use) Notes: Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN), Industrial Process Water Supply (PROC), Industrial Service Water Supply (IND), Agricultural Supply (AGR), Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM), Estuarine Habitat (EST), Fish Migration (MIGR), Navigation (NAV), Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species (RARE), Fish Spawning (SPWN), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), Water Contact Recreation (REC-1), Noncontact Water Recreation (REC-2).

Source: San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 2024, Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-17
In addition to the establishment of beneficial uses and water quality objectives, another approach to improve water quality is a watershed-based methodology that focuses on all potential pollution sources and not just those associated with point sources. If a body of water does not meet established water quality standards under traditional point source controls, it is listed as an impaired water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. For 303(d) listed water bodies, a limit is established that defines the maximum amount of pollutants that can be received by that water body. Only the Lower San Francisco Bay is a listed impaired water body affected by the EIR Study Area, and its associated pollutants of concern are presented in Table 4.9-2, Listed Impaired Water Bodies in San Carlos.

TABLE 4.9-2 LISTED IMPAIRED WATER BODIES IN SAN CARLOS
Name Pollutants of Concern
Lower San Francisco Bay
 DDT a
 Dioxin Compounds c
 Furan Compounds d
 Invasive Species
 Mercury
 PCBs e
 Dieldrin b
 Chlordane a
 Trash
Notes:
a. Used as a pesticide.
b. Used as an insecticide.
c. Burning processes, such as commercial or municipal waste incineration, backyard burning, and the use of fuels, such as wood, coal, or oil, produce dioxins. The compounds collect in high concentrations in soils and sediments. d. Furan is a flammable liquid compound found in common organic solvents. e. PCBs were used widely in electrical equipment like capacitors and transformers. They were banned in the US in 1979.

Source: State Water Resource Control Board, 2024, California 2018 Integrated Report.

Flood Zones
FEMA determines floodplain zones to assist cities in mitigating flooding hazards through land use planning. FEMA also outlines specific regulations for any construction within a 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is defined as an area that has a 1 percent chance of being inundated during a 12- month period. FEMA also prepares maps for 500-year floods, which mean that, in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 0.2 percent. In some locations, FEMA also provides measurements of base flood elevations for the 100-year flood, which is the minimum height of the flood waters during a 100-year event. Base flood elevation is reported in feet above sea level. Depth of flooding is determined by subtracting the land’s height above sea level from the base flood elevation. Areas within the 100-year flood hazard area that are financed by federally backed mortgages are subject to mandatory federal insurance requirements and building standards to reduce flood damage.

There are two main types of flooding that occur in the EIR Study Area: 1) tidal flooding and 2) riverine flooding. Tidal flooding occurs during king tides. Riverine flooding occurs when the local streams and rivers overtop their banks during extreme rainfall events. Coupled with flat topography and a high groundwater table, stormwater runoff from these events can exceed the capacity of the City’s storm drain system. Tidal and riverine flooding can also occur simultaneously, and the effects are compounded by climate change and sea level rise. Localized flooding can also occur in flat, urbanized areas of the city after heavy rain events. San Carlos has experienced periodic flooding generally due to storm drain inlet blockages, runoff volumes exceeding drainage capacity, and overtopping of creeks.24 Additionally, the 24 City of San Carlos, 2017, Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan, dated April 2017. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-18 JANUARY 2025
eastern portion of the City is mostly flat and is subject to tidal influences associated with the Smith and Steinberger Sloughs to the northeast.

A map of the EIR Study Area locations that are within the 100-year floodplains is shown on Figure 4.9-2, FEMA Flood Zones. FEMA maps areas at risk of inundation from a 100-year flood, which has a one percent chance of occurring in any year, and a 500-year flood, where the risk of flooding is 0.2 percent annually, as shown in Figure 4.9-2. These areas are primarily located along creeks, including Pulgas Creek, Brittan Creek and Cordilleras Creek, and along and east of El Camino Real. The 100-year flood zone is also known as a Special Flood Hazard Area; homeowners with mortgages within the Special Flood Hazard Area are required to be protected by flood insurance. The locations of the 500-year floodplain are also shown on Figure 4.9-2, but there are no restrictions on building within the 500-year floodplain.

Dam Inundation
A dam inundation zone is an area in which flooding could occur due to failure of an upstream dam.

Partial or complete dam failures can occur from one or more of the following causes:
 Earthquake
 Overtopping caused by floods that exceed the dam capacity due to Inadequate spillway capacity  Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage, or piping/rodent activity  Improper design resulting in structural failure of dam materials  Foundation failure
 Inadequate operation, maintenance and upkeep
 Settling and cracking of concrete or embankment dams
 Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway.

There is only one dam that has the potential to cause flooding in San Carlos in the event of a catastrophic dam failure: Notre Dame Dam. Figure 4.9-3, Dam Inundation Zones, shows the Notre Dame dam inundation zone near San Carlos. The Notre Dame Dam is regulated by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). California Water Code requires owners of all dams under DSOD jurisdiction (except dams classified as low downstream hazard) to prepare dam inundation maps. These maps must be updated every ten years or when there are changes to downstream development or terrain. The dam inundation maps are submitted to DSOD for review and approval. Once the maps are approved, the dam owner must submit the map with the Emergency Action Plan to the California Office of Emergency Services for review and approval.

2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-21
Notre Dame Dam is a 51-foot-high earthen embankment dam and located in the City of Belmont. It impounds Water Dog Lake. Failure of this dam would result in released water flowing east, resulting in flooding in Belmont and the northern portion of the EIR Study Area along Belmont Creek. The dam is owned and operated by Belmont City Department of Public Works and is classified as an high hazard dam because it has the potential to impact highly populated areas and critical facilities or have short evacuation times.

There have been no dam failures in the San Carlos or County of San Mateo, other than the failure of a small dam in the community of El Granada in 1926.25 There are no State or local restrictions for development in dam inundation zones; however, each dam owner is required to prepare an emergency action plan (EAP) and coordinate its response to a dam incident with local authorities. The San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management maintains copies of the most recent dam EAP and inundation maps and uses this information to plan notification for downstream areas in the event of a dam failure. Also, the Redwood City-San Carlos Fire Department (RC-SCFD) manages and maintains emergency plans and training for City staff and the community.

Sea Level Rise
According to OneShoreline, San Mateo County as a whole is the most vulnerable county in California to sea level rise because of its extensive coastline and Bay shoreline and the number of people and value of properties and critical assets in sea level rise-prone areas. Along the shoreline of the City, sea levels are projected to rise approximately 2 feet by 2050 and up to 7 feet by 2100 (depending on the scenario).

However, it is possible that sea levels could rise faster than these projections. Figure 4.9-4, Sea Level Rise 2050, and Figure 4.9-5, Sea Level Rise 2100, display the expected sea level rise in San Carlos in 2050 (2 feet), sea level rise in San Carlos in 2050 with a 100-year storm, and sea level rise in San Carlos in 2100 (7 feet), respectively, based on guidance from the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 Updated California Sea Level Rise Guidance, featuring models from the Adapting to Rising Tides program of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). These figures do not reflect the improvements currently underway for the Foster City levee system, north of San Carlos.

Rising sea levels can also cause the shoreline to flood more frequently and severely during storms or king tide events. King tides are abnormally high, predictable astronomical tides that occur about twice per year, with the highest tides occurring when the earth, moon, and sun are aligned. Because sea level rise will cause ocean levels to be higher during normal conditions, shoreline floods can reach further onto land. For example, a storm that has a one in five chance of occurring in a given year (known as a fiveyear storm) can create a temporary increase in sea levels of approximately 24 inches. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset call for planning for a medium- to high-risk aversion scenario in 2100. This scenario uses a 1 in 200 chance for sea level rise projections, providing a precautionary projection that can be used for less adaptive (less able to make changes that reduce harm in response to hazards), more vulnerable developments or populations that will experience moderate to high consequences if actions are not taken to address sea level rise in these areas. 25 San Mateo County, 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Source: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2017; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018; and Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) (2021).

Figure 4.9-4
Sea Level Rise 2050
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS
Source: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2017; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018; and Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) (2021).

Figure 4.9-5
Sea Level Rise 2100
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-24 JANUARY 2025
Rising sea levels may impact a portion of San Carlos’s housing, the San Carlos Airport, commercial buildings, essential infrastructure, and economic drivers, as low-lying land near the shoreline could be subject to more frequent shoreline flooding. Shoreline roads, including Highway 101, and infrastructure located beneath roads are at an increased risk of damage or failure due to subsidence exacerbated by sea level rise. Meanwhile, rising tides may increase groundwater levels, inundating contaminated soils.

Given that some contaminated sites in San Carlos sit near the shoreline, rising groundwater may cause contaminated soils to leach into new, different areas.

Additionally, to proactively address the potential impacts of sea level rise, the City of San Carlos is working with regional, State, and federal partners. The City regularly participates in data gathering and mapping; collaborates with OneShoreline; and completes infrastructure projects to provide flood protection. The City is also engaged through the BayCAN collaborative, a Bay Area-wide collaborative network of local governments and organizations focused on responding effectively and equitably to the impacts of climate change.

Tsunami
A tsunami is a series of traveling ocean waves generated by a rare, catastrophic event, including earthquakes, submarine landslides, and submarine or shoreline volcanic eruptions. Tsunamis can travel over the ocean surface at speeds of 400 to 500 miles per hour or more, and wave heights at the shore can range from inches to 50 feet. Factors influencing the size and speed of a tsunami include the source and magnitude of the triggering event, as well as off-shore and on-shore topography.

Tsunamis that could potentially impact the City can result from offshore earthquakes in or around the Bay Area or from distant events. It is most common for tsunamis to be generated by offshore subduction faults such as those in Washington, Alaska, Japan, and South America. Tsunami waves generated by these distant sites can travel across the ocean or down the coast but would result in several hours of warning time. Local tsunamis could also result from offshore strike-slip faults with little warning time.

However, the Bay Area faults that are off the Pacific coastline or under portions of San Francisco Bay are not likely to produce significant tsunamis because they move side to side rather than up and down, which is the displacement needed to create significant tsunamis. The greatest risk of a significant tsunami in the Bay Area is from tsunamis generated by earthquakes elsewhere in the Pacific.

Although the Bay Area has experienced tsunamis in the past, they have not created significant damage.

Most of the damage has occurred along the Pacific Coast. The 1964 Alaska earthquake resulted in wave heights of up to 1.1 meters along the San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma County coastlines. The 2011 Magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan caused damage to marinas and ports in Santa Cruz and Crescent City, but no damage within San Francisco Bay.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-25
According to the County’s MJHMP, the areas beyond the EIR Study Area to the northeast would be within a tsunami inundation area (i.e., Smith Slough, Steinberger Slough, and Bair Island). 26 However, the City of
San Carlos and the EIR Study Area are not within a tsunami inundation area.

Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation wave generated in a closed or partially closed body of water, which can be compared to the back-and-forth sloshing in a bathtub. Seiches can be caused by winds, changes in atmospheric pressure, underwater earthquakes, tsunamis, or landslides into the water body. Bodies of water such as bays, harbors, reservoirs, ponds, and swimming pools can experience seiche waves up to several feet in height during a strong earthquake. However, for a seiche to occur in San Francisco Bay, the wave frequency of a tsunami would have to match the resonance frequency of the Bay. The typical frequency of a tsunami is ten minutes to an hour, and the resonance frequency of San Francisco Bay is somewhere between one to ten hours. Therefore, tsunamis have frequencies too short to resonate within San Francisco Bay and a seiche is considered unlikely. There are no large bodies of water within the EIR Study Area that could trigger a seiche. Seiches associated with large bodies or water, such as Lake Tahoe and the Great Lakes are typically one foot high or less. Therefore, the probability that Notre Dame Dam would be overtopped by a seiche is negligible since all lakes or reservoirs have a freeboard greater than one foot.

4.9.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant hydrology and water quality impact if it would:

HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.

HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. 26 San Mateo County, 2024, Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Resources, Mapping Tool, https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/multijurisdictional-local-hazard-mitigation-plan-resources, accessed October 17, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-26 JANUARY 2025
HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

HYD-6 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts in the area.

4.9.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
HYD-1 The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Construction
Future development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would involve soil disturbance, construction, and operation of land uses that could generate pollutants affecting stormwater. Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials, such as fuels, solvents, and paints, may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment on-site during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.

To minimize these potential impacts, future development that involves the disturbance of one acre or more of land would require compliance with the Construction General Permit (CGP) Order WQ 2022- 0057-DWQ, which includes the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. A SWPPP requires the incorporation of BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction and prevent contaminants from reaching receiving water bodies. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, and a SWPPP. The construction contractor is required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant is required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB. Categories of potential BMPs that would be implemented for the proposed project are described in Table 4.9-3, Construction Best Management Practices.

TABLE 4.9-3 CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion Controls
and Wind Erosion
Controls
 Use project scheduling and planning to
reduce soil or vegetation disturbance
(particularly during the rainy season)
 Prevent or reduce erosion potential by
diverting or controlling drainage
 Prepare and stabilize disturbed soil areas
Scheduling, preservation of existing vegetation,
hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, straw
mulch, geotextile and mats, wood mulching, earth
dikes and drainage swales, velocity dissipation
devices, slope drains, streambank stabilization,
compost blankets, soil preparation/roughening, and
non-vegetative stabilization
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-27
TABLE 4.9-3 CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Category Purpose Examples
Sediment Controls  Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water
Silt fence, sediment basin, sediment trap, check dam,
fiber rolls, gravel bag berm, street sweeping and
vacuuming, sandbag barrier, straw bale barrier, storm
drain inlet protection, manufactured linear sediment
controls, compost socks and berms, and biofilter bags
Wind Erosion
Controls
 Apply water or other dust palliatives to
prevent or minimize dust nuisance
Dust control soil binders, chemical dust suppressants,
covering stockpiles, permanent vegetation, mulching,
watering, temporary gravel construction, synthetic
covers, and minimization of disturbed area
Tracking Controls  Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles
Stabilized construction roadways and construction
entrances/exits, and entrance/outlet tire wash
Nonstorm Water
Management
Controls
 Prohibit discharge of materials other
than stormwater, such as discharges
from the cleaning, maintenance, and
fueling of vehicles and equipment
 Conduct various construction operations,
including paving, grinding, and concrete
curing and finishing, in ways that
minimize non-stormwater discharges and
contamination of any such discharges
Water conservation practices, temporary stream
crossings, clear water diversions, illicit
connection/discharge, potable and irrigation water
management, and the proper management of the
following operations: paving and grinding,
dewatering, vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling
and maintenance, pile driving, concrete curing,
concrete finishing, demolition adjacent to water,
material over water, and temporary batch plants
Waste
Management and
Controls (i.e., good
housekeeping
practices)
 Manage materials and wastes to avoid
contamination of stormwater
Stockpile management, spill prevention and control,
solid waste management, hazardous waste
management, contaminated soil management,
concrete waste management, sanitary/septic waste
management, liquid waste management, and
management of material delivery storage and use
Source: Compiled by PlaceWorks from information provided in the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Construction BMP Handbook.

Submittal of the PRDs and implementation of the SWPPP throughout the construction phase of development pursuant to the proposed project will address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from construction activities. Furthermore, as required in SCMC Chapter 12.08, any construction project that involves land disturbance and requires a site development planning application must obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Department. In addition, the City complies with Section C.6, Construction Site Control, of the San Carlos MS4 permit and confirms implementation of appropriate BMPs with construction site inspections. As a result, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Operational
Future development and activities under the proposed project may result in long-term impacts to the quality of stormwater and urban runoff, subsequently impacting downstream water quality and/or San Francisco Bay. Developments can potentially create new sources for runoff contamination through changing land uses. As a consequence, developments within the EIR Study Area as a whole may have the potential to increase the post-construction pollutant loadings of certain constituent pollutants 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-28 JANUARY 2025
associated with the proposed land uses and their associated features, such as landscaping and plaza areas.

To help prevent long-term impacts associated with land use changes, and in accordance with the requirements of the MS4 permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018) and the SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, new development and redevelopment projects that involve the creation and/or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must incorporate low impact development (LID) site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures to address post-construction stormwater runoff. These regulated projects would be required to submit a SCP and C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of San Carlos.

In addition, projects that create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces and are located in a mapped susceptible area must comply with the hydromodification requirements specified in the C.3.g provisions of the MS4 permit. The hydromodification provisions require that post-project runoff rates and durations must match pre-project runoff rates and durations for ten percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the pre-project 10-year peak flow. In general, the western and southwestern portions of San Carlos are within the areas subject to hydromodification requirements.

All regulated projects are required to prepare an SCP that demonstrates that the project incorporates site design measures and treatment facilities that will:
 Minimize imperviousness
 Retain or detain stormwater
 Slow runoff rates
 Reduce pollutants in post-development runoff
In particular, the SCP would show that all runoff from impervious areas is either dispersed to landscape or routed to a properly designed LID treatment facility.27 LID is an approach to land development (or redevelopment) that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles, such as bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or watershed. Applied on a broad scale, LID can maintain or restore a watershed's hydrologic and ecological functions.

Since the proposed project does not include specific development plans, SCPs are not required at this time. New development and redevelopment projects within the EIR Study Area would be required to prepare SCPs consistent with the guidance in the SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Guide and the MS4 permit at the time of project application.
27 SMCWPPP, 2020, C.3 Regulated Projects Guide.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-29
As part of the statewide mandate to reduce trash within receiving waters, the City is required to adhere to the requirements of the California Trash Amendments. The requirements include the installation and maintenance of trash screening devices at all public curb inlets, grate inlets, and catch basin inlets. The trash screening devices must be certified trash full capture systems and must be installed on all inlets by 2030.

Additionally, all development under to the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the SCMC, which prohibits illicit discharge into the storm drain system and includes policies to reduce the pollutants in stormwater (Chapter 13.14.070) and protect the water quality of watercourses (Chapter 13.14.120). All development that discharges storm water associated with industrial activity shall also comply with the requirements of the General Industrial Permit (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, last amended in 2018).

The Environmental Management (EM) Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Elements of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to hydrology and water quality. The following General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on water quality and stormwater discharge:
 Goal EM-2: Promote healthy streams and riparian corridors.  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-2.2: Consider establishing incentives to stabilize creek banks utilizing natural methods.
 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 EM-5: Assure a high level of domestic water quality, promote water conservation and reduce toxics in run-off, including storm- water and the sanitary sewer system.  Policy EM-5.1: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the city’s sanitary sewer and stormwater collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).  Policy EM-5.2: Promote the use of less toxic household and commercial cleaning materials.  Policy EM-5.3: 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.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-30 JANUARY 2025
 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.
 Policy EM-5.6: Continue public education programs on water issues working with water service providers, local non-profits and other environmental organizations, including conservation measures and BMPs for residents, businesses, contractors and City employees.  Policy EM-5.7: Encourage site designs that manage the quantity and quality of storm water run-off.
 Policy EM-5.10: Require the evaluation of potential groundwater depletion that could occur from new development through dewatering.
 Action EM-5.1: Evaluate amending the Zoning Code to maximize permeable surfaces or other water catchment methods for new development as applicable.  Action EM-5.2: Utilize bioswales and other bio-filtration systems as applicable to cleanse run-off before it enters creeks and the San Francisco Bay.
 Action EM-5.3: Minimize road surface pollutant runoff by utilizing appropriate methods such as regular street sweeping.
 Action EM-5.4: Implement Climate Action Plan measures to provide for water-efficient landscaping.
 Action EM-5.5: Establish water conservation goals for City buildings and operations.  Action EM-5.6: Evaluate potential incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation.
 Action EM-5.9: Monitor outside agencies responsible for cleaning up known toxic sites.  Action EM-5.10: Implement the NPDES Stormwater Permit and for those properties exempt from the Permit, require a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including use of best management practices, to control erosion and sedimentation during construction.  Goal ESPS-2: Reduce hazards associated with flooding and inundation.  Policy ESPS-2.1: Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.
 Policy ESPS-2.2: Maintain and prioritize restoration of a healthy riparian corridor in Citymaintained flood control channels such as Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage, and heavy undergrowth; and increase community access to channels with improved stormwater and flood management strategies.  Policy ESPS-2.3: Maintain a strong and enforceable Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance for all city creeks and their tributaries.
 Policy ESPS-2.4: Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-31
 Policy ESPS-2.5: Evaluate flood hazards on a watershed level, taking into account all sources of water and the eventual end point of each source.
 Policy ESPS-2.6: Promote City staff knowledge and training on the relationship between watershed health and flood hazards.
 Policy ESPS-2.7: Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on approaches to flooding and creek maintenance.
 Policy ESPS-2.8: Continue to work with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies (such as FEMA, San Mateo County OneShoreline Program, City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) of San Mateo County, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to: (1) maintain the most current flood hazard and floodplain information and use it as a basis for project review; and (2) create public-private partnerships to guide development in accordance with federal, State, and local standards.
 Policy ESPS-2.9: Reduce losses due to flooding by encouraging property owners who experience flood damage to reconstruct their properties in a flood-resistant manner.  Policy ESPS-2.10: Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.
 Policy ESPS-2.11: Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. To this end, the City shall ensure that its regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 Action ESPS-2.1: Consider participating in a regional Watershed Management Plan to perform technical analysis to understand geotechnical, biological, and hydraulic conditions to model the hydrography of the city and identify options to reduce flooding risk and where opportunities exist to restore creeks within the watershed to a more naturalized condition. Options could include detaining or retaining stormwater runoff in upper portions of the watershed, adding capacity in the lower portions of the watershed and maintaining existing creek and channel capacity through improved maintenance. The Watershed Management Plan would seek to balance the two primary functions of creeks: flood control and riparian habitat.  Action ESPS-2.2: Amend the Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance to: (1) include all creeks and tributaries, including Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek, to strengthen the effectiveness of existing policies and to create vital and accessible community open space with improved stormwater and flood management strategies; (2) increase the required setbacks and landscaping provisions from the existing creek top to improve stormwater detention capacity and to help address flooding issues and creek restoration; (3) prohibit general vehicle access along the creek within the Stream Development Ordinance overlay district.  Action ESPS-2.3: Develop preferred streambank stabilization methods, which will guide private property owners in making repairs
 Action ESPS-2.4: Establish incentives for property owners to stabilize creek banks with natural methods
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-32 JANUARY 2025
 Action ESPS-2.5: Work with private property owners who own creek frontage and educate the public on bio-engineering of creeks to stabilize banks and maintain natural creek forms.  Action ESPS-2.6: Seek to have property owners downstream of city limit maintain drainage channels in a responsible manner to avoid flooding.
 Action ESPS-2.7: Initiate flood insurance rate map revisions for City projects.  Action ESPS-8-8: Develop and maintain an emergency notification system (e.g., SMC Alert) for the most vulnerable community members before, during, and after a climate hazard event and assist in their evacuation, if needed. This includes coordination with the San Mateo County OneShoreline program on its early flood warning notification system.

Adherence to SMCWPPP and MS4 permit requirements, in conjunction with implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed above, would ensure that development under the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements for both construction and operational phases, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-2 The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant environmental impact if it would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

Future development in the EIR Study Area could result in an increase in impervious surfaces, thus reducing groundwater recharge.

Groundwater Recharge
Future development would be required to implement BMPs and LID measures—which include on-site infiltration—where feasible. The SMCWPPP guidance document and the MS4 Permit require site design measures, source control measures, LID standards, and hydromodification measures to be included in an SCP that must be submitted to and approved by the City. These measures minimize the impact of impervious areas by including pervious pavements, drainage to landscaped areas and bioretention areas, and the collection of rooftop runoff in rain barrels or cisterns for new development projects. These measures also increase the potential for groundwater recharge. In addition, groundwater within the EIR Study Area is not used by municipal water agencies and is limited in capacity and quality.

If construction dewatering is required with future development within the EIR Study Area, an application for a groundwater waste discharge permit must be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval. The applicant may be required to collect groundwater samples representative of the water quality anticipated in the discharge if construction dewatering occurs in an area of known or potential 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-33
groundwater contamination. Construction dewatering could have a temporary effect on the shallow groundwater aquifer, but this effect would be limited in terms of the quantity of water withdrawn and the duration of the withdrawal. Therefore, construction dewatering would result in a less-thansignificant impact in terms of groundwater recharge.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Groundwater Use
The groundwater basin that underlies most of the City of San Carlos is designated as a very low priority basin and therefore is not regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. This is because there is very little groundwater use in this groundwater basin and it is mostly due to private well pumping in the areas south and outside of the City.

As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, Cal Water-MPS and MPWD supply with water purchased from the SFPUC. The SFPUC’s water supplies consist of surface water imported from the Sierra Nevada via the Hetch Hetchy Project and local surface water from the San Francisco Bay Region.

Groundwater is not used for municipal water supply in the city.28 As discussed in impact discussion HYD-1, the 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 hydrology and water quality, including groundwater.

In addition to the General Plan goal, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion HYD-1, the following proposed goal, policies, and actions would serve to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources in the city:
 Goal ESPS-12: A community protected against rising groundwater levels caused by sea level rise.  Policy ESPS-12.1: Study the effects of rising groundwater on people and the built environment.  Policy ESPS-12.2: Ensure the San Carlos municipal code protects development from rising groundwater levels. This may include measures to protect underground utilities from constant submersion, the construction of building foundations and roadbeds in saturated soils, the protection of underground structures, and the management of groundwater dewatered during construction.
 Action ESPS-12.1: Coordinate with OneShoreline local jurisdictions, regional, and state agencies to study sea level rise’s potential impacts on rising groundwater levels. The study could consider the impacts of rising groundwater levels on: saltwater intrusion into near shore groundwater aquifers, overland flooding, underground utility infrastructure and underground structures, increased soil liquefaction and subsidence risk; and movement or transport of toxic or hazardous materials at old contamination sites.
28 California Water Service, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Mid-Peninsula District. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-34 JANUARY 2025
 Action ESPS-12.2: Continue to enforce the San Carlos Municipal Code requirements for development in areas of rising groundwater. Regularly update San Carlos’ policies and codes to reflect the most recent technical and building/safety studies’ findings regarding groundwater levels.

Future development under the project would not use groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater use, and implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions would further protect groundwater; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-3 The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.

Erosion and Siltation
New development or redevelopment within the EIR Study Area could result in an increase in impervious surfaces. This, in turn, could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to storm drains, and the potential to cause erosion or siltation in streams. Increases in tributary flows can exacerbate creek bank erosion or cause destabilizing channel incision.

All future development pursuant to the proposed project would be required to implement constructionphase BMPs as well as post-construction site design, source control measures, and treatment controls in accordance with the requirements of the CGP, the SCMC, the MS4 Permit, and the SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide. Typical construction BMPs include silt fences, fiber rolls, catch basin inlet protection, water trucks, street sweeping, and stabilization of truck entrance/exits. Each new development or redevelopment project that disturbs one or more acre of land would be required to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the SWRCB that describes the measures to control discharges from construction sites. In addition, under SCMC Chapter 12.08, the City has the authority to require submittal of an interim and final ESCP, if required by the City Engineer or Building Official. The ESCP must describe erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented during the construction phase as well as final stabilization control measures as well as the calculation of maximum surface runoff amounts and sediment yield.

Once future development projects have been constructed, C.3 requirements in the MS4 permit for new development or redevelopment projects must be implemented and include site design measures, source control measures, LID, and treatment measures that address stormwater runoff and would reduce the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-35
potential for erosion and siltation. Site design measures include limits on clearing, grading, and soil compaction; minimizing impervious surfaces; conserving the natural areas of the site as much as possible; complying with stream setback ordinances; and protecting slopes and channels from erosion.

LID measures include the use of permeable pavements, directing runoff to pervious areas, and the construction of bioretention areas. The SCP must also include operation and maintenance procedures and an agreement to maintain any stormwater treatment and control facilities for perpetuity. Adherence to the streambed alteration agreement process under Sections 1601 to 1606 of the California Fish and Game Code would further reduce erosion and siltation impacts that may occur due to streambed alterations. Projects subject to hydromodification must also maintain the pre-project creek erosion potential by implementing various control measures. Compliance with these regional and local regulatory requirements will ensure that erosion and siltation impacts from new development and redevelopment projects would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Flooding On- or Off-Site
New development and/or redevelopment and changes in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to drainage channels and creeks, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities. However, all future development must comply with the requirements of the MS4 Permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide. Regulated projects must implement BMPs, including LID BMPs and site design BMPs, which effectively minimize imperviousness, retain or detain stormwater on-site, decrease surface water flows, and slow runoff rates. Projects that create and/or replace one acre of impervious surface must also adhere to the hydromodification requirements of the MS4 permit and the SMCWPPP document to ensure that postproject runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff for 10 percent of the 2-year to 10-year peak flow rates.

Adherence to these regulatory requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment within the EIR Study Area. Therefore, future projects under the proposed project would not result in flooding on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage System Capacity
As discussed above, an increase in impervious surfaces with new development or redevelopment within the EIR Study Area could result in increases in stormwater runoff, which in turn could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. All future development and redevelopment projects would be required to comply with the MS4 permit requirements and follow the SMCWPPP guidance document when designing on-site stormwater treatment facilities. The hydrology study and SCP for each project is subject to City review to verify that the on-site storm drain systems and treatment facilities can accommodate stormwater runoff from the site and would not exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems at the point of connection. Also, implementation of the C.3 provisions of the MS4 permit for new development, which include LID design and bioretention areas, would minimize increases in peak flow rates or runoff volumes, thus reducing stormwater runoff to the storm drain system.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-36 JANUARY 2025
Due to the built-out nature of the EIR Study Area, future development within the EIR Study Area would be mainly infill projects or the intensification of existing land uses and would be in developed urban areas with existing impervious surfaces and existing storm drain systems. With the implementation of the C.3 provisions for new projects within the EIR Study Area, there should not be a significant increase in impervious surfaces or stormwater runoff to the City’s storm drain system.

Further, new development and redevelopment within the EIR Study Area would be typical urban uses and would not create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. During the construction phase, projects would be required to prepare SWPPPs and implement erosion control plans, thus limiting the discharge of pollutants from the site. During operation, projects must implement BMPs and LID measures that minimize the amount of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants.

With implementation of these control measures and regulatory provisions to limit runoff from new development sites, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain facilities, and the impact is less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Redirecting Flood Flows
The discussion above regarding on- and off-site flooding is also applicable to the analysis of impeding or redirecting flood flows. Since new development projects are required to comply with C.3 provisions of the MS4 Permit and retain stormwater on-site via the use of bioretention facilities, any flood flows would also be retained for a period of time on-site, which would minimize the potential for flooding impacts. Impact discussion HYD-4 discusses the potential for impeding or redirecting flood flows with development in areas within the 100-year floodplain. Based on these discussions, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.

As discussed in impact discussion HYD-1, the 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 hydrology and water quality, including flood flows. In addition to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions identified in impact discussions HYD-1 and HYD2, the following proposed goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize flood risks:
 Goal ESPS-11: A community that is protected against sea level rise and safeguards the natural and built environment from inundation due to rising sea levels.  Policy ESPS-11.1: Coordinate with State, regional, and local agencies, including the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) on planning for sea level rise and developing response options, including a regionally coordinated sea level rise adaptation plan. Consider participating in partnerships that can provide technical assistance and potential funding for sea level rise resiliency planning. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-37
 Policy ESPS-11.2: Continue to work with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies (such as FEMA, San Mateo County OneShoreline Program, City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) of San Mateo County, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to maintain the most recent sea level rise mapping and information and use it as a basis for project review.
 Policy ESPS-11.4: Provide protection to or relocate critical facilities in the sea level rise zone to prevent damage from inundation.
 Policy ESPS-11.5: Integrate sea level rise planning into City processes.  Policy ESPS-11.6: Ensure all new development and substantial retrofit projects are planned and designed to accommodate increases in sea level rise.
 Action ESPS-11.1: Coordinate with State recommendations and OneShoreline, identify midcentury and end of century sea level rise projections that would be consistently used by the city in planning efforts and to evaluate all private and public development applications to ensure projects in sea level rise inundation zones are protected from inundation over the life of the project. OneShoreline’s standard for its shoreline project is to protect against the FEMA 100-year storm, plus six feet of sea level rise.
 Action ESPS-11.5: Cooperate with FEMA in its efforts to incorporate predictions of sea level rise in its Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).  Action ESPS-11.7: In coordination with OneShoreline, regional planning efforts, and State guidance, sea level rise adaptation strategies should use or restore natural features and ecosystem processes where feasible and appropriate as a preferred approach to the placement of hard shoreline protection. This includes systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes, such as permeable pavements, bioswales, and other engineered systems, such as levees that are combined with restored natural systems, to provide clean water, conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.  Action ESPS-11.9: Incorporate sea level rise in the development of watershed management plans and flood control infrastructure with a focus on nature based solutions.  Action ESPS-11.16: Actively promote public education, research, information dissemination, and mitigation options on flooding hazards to the community including neighborhood associations, realtors, community-based organizations, and property owners in areas subject to increased flooding due to sea level rise.

With compliance with the MS4 permit, SMCWPPP requirements, and General Plan goals, policies, and actions, future development would not result in substantial erosion or siltation and would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff which would result in flooding, impede or redirect flood flows, or exceed the capacity of the drainage system. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-38 JANUARY 2025
HYD-4 The proposed project would not in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Pollutant Release in Flood Hazard Zones
Future development projects could involve development of some projects in FEMA 100-year flood zones.

As shown on Figure 4.9-2, FEMA Flood Zones, some areas around El Camino Real, between Highway 101 and El Camino Real, and along Pulgas and Brittan Creek are within the 100-year floodplain.

Future development in 100-year flood zones would be subject to floodplain requirements listed in SCMC Chapter 15.56. Prior to the start of construction or development within a Flood Hazard Area (i.e., 100- year floodplain), the City of San Carlos requires project applicants to obtain a development permit from the City’s Floodplain Administrator and construct new development in accordance with the standards in SCMC Chapter 15.56.120. The standards of construction include provisions for flood risk reduction, including anchoring and flood-resistant materials and construction methods, with the lowest floors elevated above the base flood elevation or higher. OneShoreline recommends that new development be elevated 3 feet above the base flood elevation in areas that are impacted by sea level rise. Prior to occupancy of any building, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and an elevation certificate must be provided to and approved by the City. Compliance with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program requirements and SCMC requirements would reduce potential flood hazards and ensure that pollutants are not released during flood inundation.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the San Mateo Jurisdictional Annex of the MJHMP includes hazard mitigation actions to help reduce the risk of damage or injury from floods.

These actions include continued implementation of floodplain management measures, incorporation of FEMA guidelines into the planning process, assessment and mitigation of urban drainage flooding.

Pollutant Release in Dam Inundation Zones
As shown in Figure 4.9-3, Dam Inundation Zone, a small portion of San Carlos is within the inundation zone of the Notre Dame Dam. The probability of dam failure is very low, and San Carlos has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain EAPs that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. An EAP identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. EAPs contain procedures and information that instruct dam owners to issue early warning and notification messages to downstream emergency management authorities, such as the San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management and the RC-SCFD.

Pollutant Release from Tsunami
Given the history of tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Area, the risk of flooding due to a tsunami event is considered to be unlikely for the City of San Carlos.
29 Tsunami hazards in San Francisco Bay are much
29 San Mateo County, 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-39
smaller than along the Pacific Coast because the bays are enclosed body of waters. According to the County’s MJHMP, the areas beyond the EIR Study Area to the northeast would be within a tsunami inundation area (i.e., Smith Slough, Steinberger Slough, and Bair Island).30 However, the City of San Carlos and the EIR Study Area are not within a tsunami inundation area.

Due to the infrequent nature of tsunamis and relatively low predicted tsunami wave height in the area, the City is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. In addition, there are various precautions and warning systems that would be implemented by the City in the event of a tsunami. The City uses an automated telephone and text message system (SMC Alert) that can notify affected portions of the community when emergency alerts or notifications are needed. Also, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates the National Tsunami Warning Center and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center that alert local authorities to order the evacuation of low-lying areas, if necessary. As discussed previously in Section 4.9.1, Environmental Setting, the probability of a seiche occurring that would cause flooding and the release of pollutants is negligible.

Pollutant Release Due to Sea Level Rise
As discussed above under the “Flood Hazard” subheading, future development could involve development in areas subject to inundation by sea level rise and associated coastal flooding. As shown on Figure 4.9-4, Sea Level Rise 2050, and Figure 4.9-5, Sea Level Rise 2100, most of the EIR Study Area east of the railroad tracks is projected to be impacted by sea level rise by 2100.

The City is a member of OneShoreline, which is working to build solutions to the climate change impacts of sea level rise, flooding, and coastal erosion. Potential adaptation measures include elevating structures to account for sea level rise, shoreline setbacks, disclosure requirements, raising shoreline levees and floodwalls, and raising roadways to maintain evacuation routes.

Future development within 100 feet of San Francisco Bay shoreline would be subject to review and approval by the BCDC. Future large shoreline projects, including shoreline protection projects, would be required to conduct a sea level rise risk assessment and be designed to be resilient to a midcentury sea level rise projection. BCDC requires that, if it is likely that the project will remain in place longer than midcentury, an adaptive management plan be developed to address the long-term impacts that will arise, based on the risk assessment. Future development more than 100 feet inland from San Pablo or San Francisco Bay shoreline would not be subject to BCDC review. However, future development would be required to comply with SCMC Chapter 15.56, which restricts development in floodable areas and requires protection for new development within inundation areas.

Sea level rise is also expected to raise groundwater levels, inundating contaminated soils. Given that some contaminated sites in San Carlos sit near the shoreline, rising groundwater associated with sea level rise may cause release of pollutants.
30 San Mateo County, 2024, Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Resources, Mapping Tool, https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/multijurisdictional-local-hazard-mitigation-plan-resources, accessed October 17, 2024. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-40 JANUARY 2025
Sea level rise and associated groundwater rise are considered to be an effect of the environment on the project. As explained in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, the California Supreme Court has determined that the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA should focus on the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including whether the proposed project may exacerbate any existing environmental hazards. Sea level rise is an existing environmental hazard in San Carlos. The discussion in this section explains the potential of the proposed project to exacerbate impacts from sea level rise. However, the effects of sea level rise on the proposed project are not subject to CEQA review following the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA vs. BAAQMD) case.
31 Therefore, this EIR does not make a finding regarding level of impact from sea level rise.

Summary
As discussed in impact discussions HYD-1 and HYD-3, the Environmental Management (EM) Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Elements of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to hydrology and water quality. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussions HYD-1 and HYD-3 would serve to address the potential for flooding and dam inundation. In conjunction with the implementation of the City’s floodplain management requirements, coordination with OneShoreline, and activation of the City’s emergency response system in the case of a dam failure or tsunami, the potential impact that there would be a release of pollutants from flooding, tsunamis, or seiches would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-5 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Adherence to the State CGP, the SCMC, the MS4 Permit, and the SMCWPPP guidance document would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction and operation of development pursuant to the proposed project. As a result, future development would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan.

Also, future development would be served by either Cal Water-MPS or MPWD, which rely solely on surface water supply. Groundwater is not currently used or planned to be used as a municipal water supply source, and the groundwater basin that includes the City of San Carlos is not regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, because of very limited groundwater use, and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not 31 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

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-41
obstruct or conflict with the RWQCB’s Basin Plan or a groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-6 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts in the area.

The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality encompasses the watersheds within the EIR Study Area, as shown on Figure 4.9-1, San Carlos Watersheds. New development in these watersheds could increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into the storm drainage systems. Cumulative development projects would be required to comply with the MS4 Permit, implement BMPs that direct drainage to landscaped areas, and integrate bioretention facilities into the site design.

All projects would be required to comply with the SCMC and various water quality regulations that control construction-related and operational discharge of pollutants into stormwater. The water quality regulations implemented by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB take a basin-wide approach and consider water quality impairment in a regional context. For example, the NPDES Construction Permit ties receiving water limitations and basin plan objectives to terms and conditions of the permit, and the MS4 Permit encompasses all of the surrounding municipalities to manage stormwater systems and be collectively protective of water quality. Projects in these watersheds would implement structural and nonstructural source-control BMPs that reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff, and treatment control BMPs that remove pollutants from stormwater.

Projects in the EIR Study Area watersheds may be constructed within 100-year flood zones, areas of sea level rise, or dam inundation zones. Projects within the 100-year flood zone would be mandated to purchase flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. Projects within inundation zones and areas subject to sea level rise may also purchase voluntary flood insurance through this program. In addition, other jurisdictions within these watersheds regulate development within flood zones in a similar manner as SCMC Chapter 15.56 and in compliance with FEMA standards to limit cumulative flood hazard impacts.

Therefore, cumulative impacts to hydrology, drainage, and flooding would be less than significant, and impacts of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-42 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-1

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to land use and planning, 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.

4.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 20001 established a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in each county in California, and authorized these commissions to review, approve, or deny proposals for boundary changes and incorporations for cities, counties, and special districts. The LAFCo established a “sphere of influence” (SOI) for cities within their jurisdiction that describes the city's probable future physical boundaries and service area. The legislation identifies that the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development, discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services.

State Density Bonus Law
The State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915-65918) encourages the development of affordable and senior housing, including an increase in project densities depending on the amount of affordable housing provided. Cities and counties are required to grant a density bonus and other incentives or concessions to housing projects which contain one of the following:
 At least 5 percent of the housing units are restricted to very low income residents.  At least 10 percent of the housing units are restricted to lower income residents.  At least 10 percent of the housing units in a for-sale common interest development are restricted to moderate income residents.
 100 percent of the housing units (other than manager’s units) are restricted to very low, lower and moderate income residents (with a maximum of 20 percent moderate). 1 California Government Code, Sections 56000–56001.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-2 JANUARY 2025
 At least 10 percent of the housing units are for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans or homeless persons, with rents restricted at the very low income level.  At least 20 percent of the housing units are for low income college students in housing dedicated for full-time students at accredited colleges.
 The project donates at least one acre of land to the city or county for very low income units, and the land has the appropriate general plan designation, zoning, permits and approvals, and access to public facilities needed for such housing.
 The project is a senior citizen housing development (no affordable units required).  The project is a mobile home park age-restricted to senior citizens (no affordable units required).

Senate Bill 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home.2
Senate Bill 1211
Approved in September 2024, this bill authorizes, under that variation, up to 8 detached accessory dwelling units (ADU) to be created on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot, and up to 2 detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling.3
Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is the regional transportation plan/sustainable community strategy, as mandated by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). Plan Bay Area 2050 lays out a development scenario for the nine-county Bay Area region that works to align transportation and land use planning in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled through modified land use patterns. The current Plan Bay Area 2050 projects growth and development patterns through 2050 and was adopted in October 2021.4
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development, September 2024, SB 9 Fact Sheet, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/sb-9-fact-sheet.pdf, accessed on December 10, 2024. 3 California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 1211, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1211, accessed December 10, 2024. 4 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 October 17, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-3
Plan Bay Area 2050 is prepared and regularly updated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in partnership with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Each of the agencies has a different role in regional governance. ABAG primarily does regional land use planning, housing, environmental quality, and economic development; MTC is tasked with regional transportation planning, coordinating, and financing; BAAQMD is responsible for regional air pollution regulation; and BCDC’s focus is to preserve, enhance, and ensure responsible use of the San Francisco Bay.

As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, Plan Bay Area designates Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) throughout the region. PDAs are areas along transportation corridors which are served by public transit that allow opportunities for development of transit-oriented, infill development within existing communities that are expected to host the majority of future development. TPAs are similar in that they are formed within one-half mile around a major transit stop such as a transit center or rail line. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area has one PDA and one TPA. The PDA is called Railroad Corridor and includes El Camino Real and the downtown area. The TPA surrounds El Camino Real and the Caltrain station in San Carlos.

Plan Bay Area 2050 distributes projected future growth across the San Francisco Bay Area region in order to meet its GHG emissions reduction, housing, and other performance targets, but it is not intended to override local land use control. Cities and counties, not MTC/ABAG, are ultimately responsible for the manner in which their local communities continue to be built out in the future. For this reason, cities and counties are not required to revise their land use policies and regulations, including general plans, to be consistent with the regional transportation plan or an alternative planning strategy. Rather than increase regional land use control, Plan Bay Area 2050 facilitates implementation by expanding incentives and opportunities available to local jurisdictions to support growth in PDAs. In addition to funding transportation and planning projects in PDAs, Plan Bay Area 2050 sets the stage for cities and counties to increase the efficiency of the development process, if they choose, for projects consistent with Plan Bay Area and other state legislation.5
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Board of Directors serves as the airport land use commission for San Mateo County. The Airport Land Use Commission reviews proposals for general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and land use development proposals in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport to ensure that future land uses in the surrounding area remain compatible with the realistically foreseeable, ultimate potential aircraft activity. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) for the three public airports in San Mateo County are adopted by C/CAG, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) responsible for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards.

Amendments were most recently made to the San Carlos ALUCP in 2022. The ALUCPs describe a series of 5Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2022, Frequently Asked Questions:

Does Plan Bay Area override local land use control?, https://www.planbayarea.org/2040-plan/quick-facts/faq-page#n4851, accessed October 17, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-4 JANUARY 2025
land use safety and compatibility zones and associated guidelines for development around each airport that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport operations. These regulations include height restrictions based on proximity to the airport and flight patterns. The ALCUPs delineate two Airport Influence Areas (AIA), Area A and Area B, within proximity to each airport. As a requirement for development located in Area A, the presence of existing airports within two miles of the property must be disclosed in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale. For development located within Area B of the AIA, the C/CAG Board shall exercise its statutory duty to review proposed land development proposals, among other plans, ordinances, amendments, and actions.

The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Carlos Airport adopted in 2015 sets forth land use compatibility criteria, compatibility zones, development standards, and policies pertaining to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight standards, and establishes the planning boundaries that define height, tall structures, noise, and safety zones for policy implementation.6
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 4.10.3, Impact Discussion.

The existing 2030 General Plan contains 19 land use designations, listed below.  Single Family, 3 DUs/Ac
 Single Family, 6 DUs/Ac
 Multi-family, 15-20 DUs/Ac
 Multi-family, 45-59 DUs/Ac
 Multi-family, 75-100 DUs/Ac
 Mixed Use, 30-40 dwelling units per acre
(DUs/Ac)
 Mixed Use, 38-50 DUs/Ac
 Mixed Use, 75-100 DUs/Ac
 Mixed Use, 90-120 DUs/Ac
 Neighborhood Retail
 Neighborhood Retail/Mixed Use, 75-120
DUs/Ac
 Planned Industrial
 General Commercial – Industrial
 Public
 Park
 Open Space
 Open Space – Schools
 Airport
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project does not include any amendments to the land use designations or land use map.
6 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-5
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 land use and planning as follows:
 Title 17, Subdivisions, regulates and controls the design and improvement of subdivisions and to ensure their compliance with applicable policies and regulations of the City of San Carlos. Within this title the Subdivisions Maps Act is implemented.
 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.

Other City Land Use Plans
All specific plans, area plans, master plans, or similar plans—such as a climate adaptation plan or a hazard mitigation plan—and zoning in the city must be consistent with the General Plan. The following describes some of the other key plans that guide development in San Carlos.  Economic Development Plan. The San Carlos 2021-2024 Economic Development Plan sets forth implementation policies and initiatives to direct the City’s investment in economic development opportunities. The plan, which is updated annually, focuses on four major themes: nurture placemaking and beautification, support enhanced connectivity and mobility, foster growth in the business community, and encourage smart real estate development.  City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan. The 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) is San Carlos’ strategic plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to changing climate conditions.
 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.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of San Carlos is a predominately residential city. The railroad tracks and El Camino Real, running roughly north to south, separate the majority of the city’s residential neighborhoods and Downtown on the west side from research and development, life sciences, industrial, and large-scale retail uses and the airport on the east side.

Residential uses are the predominant land use in San Carlos, and account for more than half of the total land area. Mixed-use land uses total eight acres, less than one percent of city land uses. Commercial and light industrial land uses comprise 14 percent and public facilities and institutions makes up nine percent. Park and open space uses encompass approximately 307 acres or 19 percent of city land uses. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-6 JANUARY 2025
Parking uses total 20 acres or less than one percent, while vacant land makes up three percent of the project area.7
Residential uses, which are the largest land use category, account for 55 percent of the project area.

Residential uses are comprised of single-family, multi-family, and mixed use categories. Single-family use is generally considered one house per lot. Single-family residential use is over 50 percent of the entire project area and is located throughout San Carlos, including east of El Camino. Multi-family use is generally considered more than one housing unit on a lot. Multi-family use can include stacked flats and townhomes. Like single-family use, multi-family uses are found throughout the project area. Mixed-use combines residential use either vertically or horizontally with a non-residential use, typically a commercial use. Mixed-use primarily occurs along El Camino Real. Over 90 percent of all residential land use is single-family land use. 8
Low residential density (defined as up to twenty units per net acre, in accordance with the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance) and medium residential density (up to 59 units per net acre) uses are concentrated in the east-central portion of San Carlos between San Carlos Avenue, Cherry Street, and Laurel Street west of El Camino Real and US-101. Of the single-family residential zoning districts, the most predominant is the RS-6 Single Family Zoning District, located throughout San Carlos and west of US 101.9 Medium density residential development allows for densities of up to 59 units per acre and accommodates stacked flats, townhomes, and rowhouses developed at a scale and form appropriate to neighborhood context and adjacent single-family residential uses. Medium density residential development is concentrated in the Downtown area, Laurel Street and the El Camino Real corridor.

Medium density housing is also found along the southern edge of the Devonshire area and along San Carlos’ western boundary.10
ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are another residential form found in San Carlos.

Consistent with SB 9, San Carlos allows ADUs to be established on any lot in any zoning district where a primary single-unit dwelling has been previously established or is proposed to be established in 7 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
8 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
9 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
10 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-7
conjunction with construction of a second unit.11,12 ADUs are also allowed on multi-family sites and, according to SB 1211, up to eight detached ADUs to be created on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot, and up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling.13 Mixed-use development combines two or more types of land use into a building or set of buildings that are physically and functionally integrated and mutually supporting. This can be a combination of residential, commercial, office, institutional, or other land uses. Mixed-use development accommodating 50 or more units per acre occurs along the eastern portion of El Camino Real corridor east of San Carlos Avenue, with the highest allowed density occurring in the Mixed Use – San Carlos Avenue zoning district.

Mixed-use districts account for less than one percent of the total land use in San Carlos.14 Other land uses include light and heavy industrial, general commercial, landmark commercial, neighborhood retail, airport, planned development, parks, and open space.15 Commercial development covers six percent of the project area. Office commercial uses containing business, professional, and medical services make up three percent, while industrial uses make up seven percent of total land area. Industrial uses include large manufacturing businesses, biotechnical and biomedical firms, and light and heavy industrial uses. Industrial uses are predominately located east of US 101 and between US 101 and El Camino Real. San Carlos Airport is located at the City’s eastern edge on land owned by San Mateo County.16
Little vacant land exists within San Carlos (approximately three percent of the project area). Vacant land is defined as having no building structures constructed on the land. Vacant land does not include parks 11 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
12 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 October 17, 2024.
13 California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 1211, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1211, accessed December 10, 2024. 14 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
15 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
16 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-8 JANUARY 2025
or open space, which is “vacant” or open by design. Vacant land can occur in each of the General Plan and zoning designated areas.17

4.10.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant land use and planning impact if it would:

LAND-1 Physically divide an established community.

LAND-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

LAND-3 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative land use and planning impacts in the area.

4.10.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
LAND-1 The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.

The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying areas. For example, an airport, roadway, or railroad track through an existing community could constrain travel from one side of the community to another or impair travel to areas outside of the community.

Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would not result in a change in land use or zoning that would cause the construction or removal of any physical features or means of access throughout the EIR Study Area or the region. The proposed project plans for increased development in the EIR Study Area. However, the proposed project does not propose any changes to the overall land use pattern in the EIR Study Area. As described 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. 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 City does not propose to annex or de-annex any areas of the SOI as part of the proposed project.

While the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset does not prohibit development opportunities outside of anticipated redevelopment areas, it does require the City to plan carefully for balanced growth. The Land 17 City of San Calros, October 2022, City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2021120442, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/274858- 2/attachment/rVEOuZTNVVoYZXU0Kz3K8IS6u3pMHGz3W_6WSLGBNyxK0vcg_uP3hfaIlRKZntg1o3Rhb-VjtJHlF12V0, accessed November 4, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-9
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 land use and planning, including established communities. The following General Plan goals, policies, and action would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to established communities:
 Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
 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.  Policy LU-1.4: Establish and support the El Camino Real/Caltrain multimodal TOD corridor for the purpose of the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.  Goal LU-3: Promote connectivity and provide retail and services within walking distance of homes and employment areas.
 Policy LU-3.9 Promote development opportunities for regular physical activity by locating residential developments near services.
 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 traffic-calming 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-3.11 In addition to public sidewalks require internal linkages in between retail developments.
 Goal LU-4: Ensure that any annexation of lands occurs in an orderly and systematic manner and adheres to all City goals, policies, and standards.
 Policy LU-4.2: Annexation of all or portions of unincorporated residential areas shall only be permitted when public services and facilities meeting City standards are available to the lands proposed for inclusion in the city. All streets, sewage and drainage systems and police and fire protection must meet City standards. In no case shall the city tax- payer be burdened with paying for additional services for newly annexed lands. Funds for these services shall be generated through property tax revenue, the establishment of special assessment districts or they shall be paid for by the developer/property owner.  Policy LU-4.3: Annexation of undeveloped parcels shall be in substantial compliance with the following criteria:
a. The parcels are contiguous to parcels located in the City of San Carlos and contiguous or provisions have been made to become contiguous to city streets. b. Require minimum lot size in hillside areas considered for subdivision or annexation to be larger than lots on flat areas to minimize slope instability, erosion and drainage impacts. Lots shall meet, or shall be merged to meet, the minimum lot size established in the subdivision ordinance.
c. Parcels with development potential of five or more lots shall cluster single-family detached homes to the degree feasible. In such cases the density may not exceed the density permitted by the lot size standards of the San Carlos Subdivision Ordinance. Further, the provisions related to portions of the development which must remain ungraded shall apply.

Only the lot size requirements may vary. In such cases, the minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-10 JANUARY 2025
 Policy LU-4.5: Annexation of developed parcels shall be in substantial compliance with the following criteria:
a. The parcels are contiguous to parcels located in the City of San Carlos and contiguous to city streets.
b. The parcels are connected to the city's sanitary sewer system or can be connected to the city's sewer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. The structures on the parcels shall comply with the Building Codes in effect at the time the structures were constructed. A Code Compliance evaluation prepared by a licensed Civil Engineering or Architect shall be submitted to the San Carlos Building Department for review and approval prior to annexation.
 Policy LU-4.7: Prior to annexation of parcels, public services and facilities meeting City standards shall be installed or provisions for their installation shall have been made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public services and utilities include:
a. Construction and acceptance of improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits or sewer connections.
b. Construction of streets meeting City subdivision street standards from the terminus of city streets currently meeting City standards to and throughout the subdivision. Where possible and appropriate and subject to environmental, health and safety considerations, rural road standards shall apply. Assessment districts may be used by the developer for installation of portions of the street which is the responsibility of the owner of abutting unimproved lands at the time their development.
 Policy LU-4.8: Annexation of parcels shall be in compliance with City General Plan policies.  Policy LU-4.9: An environmental analysis under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a fiscal impact analysis shall be conducted.

Because the proposed project includes the policies above and does not propose any physical barriers, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

LAND-2 The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
While the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is the primary planning document for the City of San Carlos and the proposed update 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 has the potential to conflict with “land use” plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. For the purposes of this EIR a “land use” plan is a policy or regulation that addresses how land is used. The following discusses the proposed 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-11
project and its relationship to the land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect as listed in Section 4.10.1.1, Regulatory Framework.

Cortese-Knox Act
The San Carlos SOI is regulated by the San Mateo County LAFCo and its purpose, among others, to discourage urban sprawl. Any proposed jurisdictional boundary changes, including annexations and detachments of territory to and/or from the City, is subject to the San Mateo County LAFCo review and approval. The San Mateo County LAFCo also must review any contractual service agreements and determine the SOI. The City does not propose to annex or de-annex any areas of the SOI as part of the proposed project. However, annexation proposals could occur during the buildout horizon of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset.

As discussed in impact discussion LAND-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 land use and planning. In addition to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed in impact discussion AES-1, the following General Plan goal, policies, and action would serve to minimize impacts from annexations and support the purpose of the San Mateo LAFCo to encourage the orderly growth of local communities, discourage urban sprawl, and assure efficient local government service:
 Goal LU-4: Ensure that any annexation of lands occurs in an orderly and systematic manner and adheres to all City goals, policies, and standards.
 Policy LU-4.1: To the extent not inconsistent with this General Plan and until such time as the City approves an Annexation Ordinance, the annexation policies of the 1992 General Plan as amended by the August 13, 2001 (Resolution 2001-115, Exhibit B) Amendment to the San Carlos General Plan, shall apply to annexation requests. Policies 4.2 through 4.10 below are the Policy intent for the Annexation Ordinance.
 Policy LU-4.4 Substandard, undeveloped parcels which do not meet the lot size standards of the City's Subdivision Ordinance will not be supported for annexation to the city.  Policy LU-4.6 Parcels proposed for annexation to the City shall be prezoned consistent with the following unless an application for a different prezoning is initiated and processed a. Undeveloped Residential Parcels.

Parcels with development potential of five or more lots shall be prezoned to Planned Development with minimum RS-3 development standards prior to approval of a tentative subdivision map.

Parcels with development potential of less than five lots shall be prezoned RS-3. b. Developed residential parcels and parcels with development potential for nonresidential use shall be prezoned consistent with surrounding and/or like zoning district classifications which represent uses intended for the property.
 Policy LU-4.10 Allow single existing developed properties which meet all annexation policies, with the exception of minimum lot size requirements, to be considered for annexation and in no circumstances shall such properties be allowed to further subdivide.  Action LU-4.1 Amend the Municipal Code to codify annexation standards for residential, commercial/industrial and other uses.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-12 JANUARY 2025
The proposed project acknowledges that the City will follow adopted San Mateo County LAFCo policies to review proposed SOI changes and annexation requests. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with the San Mateo County LAFCo policies, and the impact would be less than significant.

Plan Bay Area
While ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 does not override local land use control, it provides guidance to the local agencies such as San Carlos on how future development can be consistent with the State’s GHG and VMT reduction goals. This includes constructing more infill development in downtowns and centers in close proximity to jobs and services. The Land Use (LU) Element and Circulation and 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 land use and planning. In addition to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions previously identified, the following General Plan goals, policies, and action would serve to minimize impacts from conflicts with Plan Bay Area:
 Goal LU-1: Ensure a sustainable land use pattern.
 Policy LU-1.1: Recognize Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 as the city’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) corridor.
 Policy LU-1.5: Support land use patterns in the TOD corridor that will attract and serve riders of public transit.
 Policy LU-1.8: As San Carlos’ Climate Action Plan is updated over time, continue to include land use goals and measures in the Plan that contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  Policy LU-1.11: Preserve existing open space by supporting urban infill.  Action LU-1.2: 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.
 Goal LU-3: Promote connectivity and provide retail and services within walking distance of homes and employment areas.
 Policy LU-3.6: Locate Neighborhood Hubs in areas ½-mile or greater from existing neighborhoodserving retail and/or another Neighborhood Hub.  Goal CSH-3: Maintain a street and highway system which accommodates future growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service.
 Policy CSH-3.4 Support Smart Growth and Sustainability principles to reduce travel time from housing to jobs, provide affordable transportation to all members of the community, allow compact mixed-use development and decrease dependency on automobiles.  Goal CSH-6: Integrate transportation and land use.
 Policy CSH-6.1: Bicycling and walking facilities should be incorporated into all new development projects to the maximum extent feasible.
 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.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-13
In addition to the General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed above, see Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Chapter 4.5, Energy, and Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR for complete lists of General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would minimize conflict with the goals of ABAG’s Plan Bay Area. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Non-Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Plans, policies, and regulations concerning a wide range of topics can also have direct and indirect effects on land use decision-making. The proposed project’s potential to conflict with other applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are discussed in detail in the other environmental topic chapters of this Draft EIR. Specifically, these discussions are in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality; Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources; Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; Chapter 4.11, Noise; Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing; Chapter 4.14, Public Services; Chapter 4.15, Transportation; Chapter 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems; and Chapter 4.18, Wildfire. Some of these key regulations include:
 Air Quality. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has prepared several plans to attain the National ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and California AAQS. The air quality management plans prepared by BAAQMD provide the framework for San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin to achieve attainment of the State and federal AAQS.  Biological Resources. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California ESA protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, provides for the protection of bald eagles and golden eagles. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and State CWA protect habitat for animals and plants. The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 was created with the intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.”
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. The National Historic Preservation Act defines the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect and preserve Historic Properties. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 protect Native American artifacts. California Government Code Section 65352.3-5, formerly known as SB 18, and Assembly Bill 52 are both intended to protect Native American resources as well.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled. Plan Bay Area 2050 provides guidance to reduce VMT and thus reduce GHG emissions to meet the State’s goals.  Airport Hazards. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) covering all three public airports in San Mateo County was approved by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in December 1996. The C/CAG has since adopted updated ALUCPs for San Francisco International Airport (November 2012), Half Moon Bay Airport (September 2014), and San Carlos Airport (October 2015). The updated ALUCPs describe a series of land use safety and compatibility 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-14 JANUARY 2025
zones and associated guidelines for development around each airport that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport operations.  Hydrology and Water Quality. The federal and State CWAs include regulations for protecting water quality. The City of San Carlos is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2).

The San Francisco Bay RWQCB addresses region-wide water quality issues through the creation and triennial update of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan).  Natural Hazards. The City of San Carlos adopted a Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MLHMP) in 2021. The MLHMP focuses on protecting the community from risks associated with hazards such as earthquakes, floods, fires, hazardous materials and other hazards. The MLHMP analyzes these hazards and the risks they pose and includes goals and mitigation strategies to establish what measures will be undertaken to reduce these risks to levels determined by the City of San Carlos to be reasonable.
 Population and Housing. ABAG is the official comprehensive planning agency for the San Mateo County area and is responsible for taking the overall Regional Housing Needs Allocation provided by the State and preparing a formula for allocating that housing need by income level across its jurisdiction.
 Utilities and Service Systems. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems.

A complete list and description of the applicable non-land-use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, is included in the individual chapters of this Draft EIR listed previously.

In summary, the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is the overriding planning document for the City and, because the proposed General Plan update involves amending the current General Plan, the impact would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

LAND-3 The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative land use impacts in the area.

The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning impacts would occur from future development under the proposed project combined with impacts of development on lands adjacent to the city. As discussed in impact discussions LAND-1 and LAND-2, the proposed project would not divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations. The proposed project would not conflict with any State, regional, or local land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Future development that would be allowed under the proposed project would not create substantial land use impacts.

Development would likely continue to occur in the surrounding cities and the unincorporated areas of 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-15
San Mateo County. However, such development would largely be taking place in already urbanized areas and would not require development or demolition that would create land use conflicts or divide established communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-16 JANUARY 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-1

4.11 NOISE
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the City of San Carlos related to noise, 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.

4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
 Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
 Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Hertz (Hz). A unit of frequency of change in state or cycle in a sound wave. The nearly universal usage is one (complete) cycle in one second.
 Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
 Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.
 Lmax. The maximum root-mean-square noise level during a measurement period.  Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
NOISE

4.11-2 JANUARY 2025
the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”
 Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and 10 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive, that is, higher than the Ldn value).

As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
 Noise-Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.  Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak rate of speed at which soil particles move (e.g., inches per second) due to ground vibration.
 Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).

Sound Fundamentals
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more like a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale performs this compensation by weighting frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.

Sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-3
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense than 1 dBA, while 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).

Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by onsite operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dBA for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by

4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance.

Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time, or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “Ln” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance, as discussed subsequently.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law and the City require that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology but only adds a 10 dBA increment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher).

Noise Exposure and Community Noise
Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
NOISE

4.11-4 JANUARY 2025
sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors.

Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.

Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (Leq) and the average daily noise levels/community noise equivalent level (Ldn/CNEL). The Leq is a measure of ambient noise during a specific time period, while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise over a 24-hour time period.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL or Ldn is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Interior noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in A-weighted noise levels (dBA), the following relationships should be noted:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response is expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial.  A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET DRAFT EIR