Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, May 27, 2025 (part 7 of 9)

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

4.18. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 1-3
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation

AESTHETICS
No significant impacts

AIR QUALITY
AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within
the buildout horizon of the proposed project would
generate emissions that would could exceed the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDAir
District) regional significance thresholds and
cumulative contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

S AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current BAAQMD Air District methodology for assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD District-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current BAAQMD Air District Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions. At the time of preparation of this EIR, such practices include:
 Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
 All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used.
 All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
1-4 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
 Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compact layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) and shall be verified by the City.

AQ-2.2: Operation of development projects under
the proposed project could generate operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMDAir District)
regional significance thresholds for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

S AQ-2.2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval.

The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD Air District methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s the Air District’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.

If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD District-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions to comply with applicable significance threshold standards during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
 Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs.  Expanding bikeway networks.
 Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
 Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
 Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards.

SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 1-5
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
 Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems.  Requiring all-electric buildings.
 Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-emission alternatives.  Implementing organics diversion programs.
 Expanding urban tree planting.

AQ-3: Construction emissions associated with future
development projects could expose air qualitysensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDAir
District) project-level and cumulative significance
thresholds.

S AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating dieselpowered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or Overburdened Community, as measured from the property line of the project site to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD the Air District. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by BAAQMD the Air District (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence), the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
 Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions  Electrifying warehousing docks
 Requiring use of newer equipment
 Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
 Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
 Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
1-6 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts

CULTURAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts
ENERGY
No significant impacts

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No significant impacts

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed project
would could exceed the greenhouse (GHG) emissions
threshold of no net increase from existing conditions
and would therefore not make substantial progress
toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under
Senate Bill (SB) 32 or the carbon neutrality goal
under Assembly Bill (AB) 1279.

S GHG-1: The City of San Carlos shall prepare an update to its Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term GHG reduction goal set by AB 1279. The updated CMAP shall be completed within three years of certification of the General Plan EIR. The updated CMAP shall be updated every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the CMAP’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG reduction target(s), and the City shall amend the CMAP if it is not achieving such targets. The CMAP update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CMAP update.

SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
PLACEWORKS 1-7
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation
 Administration and Staffing
 Finance and Budgeting
 Timelines for Measure Implementation
 Community Outreach and Education
 Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
 Tracking Tools

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No significant impacts

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No significant impacts

LAND USE AND PLANNING
No significant impacts
NOISE
No significant impacts

PARKS AND RECREATION
No significant impacts

POPULATION AND HOUSING
No significant impacts

PUBLIC SERVICES
No significant impacts

TRANSPORTATION
TRAN-2: The proposed project could exceed the
City’s VMT significance criteria by generating VMT
per service, per capita, and per employee that
exceeds a threshold of 15 percent less than the
regional average and by increasing total countywide
VMT.

S TRAN-2: The City of San Carlos shall amend its Transportation Demand Management program (San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management) to increase the required trip reduction to the extent feasible.

SU
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
1-8 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
with
Mitigation

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No significant impacts

WILDFIRE
WILD-2: Future development during the buildout
horizon of the proposed project could increase
population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfireprone areas, thereby exacerbating wildfire risks.

S None available. SU
WILD-5: Future development during the buildout
horizon of the proposed project could, in
combination with other surrounding and future
projects in the State Responsibility Areas, Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), or Wildland-Urban
Interface (WUI), result in cumulative impacts
associated with the exposure of project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope,
prevailing winds, or other factors.

S None available. SU
PLACEWORKS 2-1
Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378[a], the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is considered a “project” subject to environmental review. The implementation is “an action [undertaken by a public agency] which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The assessment in this Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is intended to inform the City’s decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the public-at-large of the nature of the proposed project and its effect on the environment.

2.1 DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(d)1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063,2 the City determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that an EIR would be required. In compliance with CEQA Section 21080.4, the City circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly known as Office of Planning and Research) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on June 3, 2024, for a 30-day review period. The scoping period for this Draft EIR was between June 3 and July 3, 2024, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the proposed project. The scope of the Draft EIR was established by the City of San Carlos through the EIR scoping process and includes an analysis of both the proposed project’s impacts and cumulative impacts in the following issue areas:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Parks and Recreation
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
 CEQA-Mandated Assessment Conclusions:
 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
 Growth Inducement
 Significant and Irreversible Changes
1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000 to 21177. 2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 to 15387.

2. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

INTRODUCTION
2-2 APRIL 2025
The Draft EIR was available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting on January 17, 2025, and ending March 3, 2025. During the comment period, the public was invited to submit written comments on the Draft EIR via mail or e-mail to the City of San Mateo Community Development Department. Additionally, on February 3, 2025, a Public Hearing for the Draft EIR was held where public comments were received.

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

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

For impacts for which the City Council finds that certain mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City to implement, or for which there are no feasible mitigation measures, the City Council would have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that determines that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable, significant effects on the environment.

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

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

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

REVISIONS TO PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following General Plan policy and actions in the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is hereby amended as follows; this is a global revision to the Draft EIR:
 Action LU-6.5: Continue to implement the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan adopted on October 25, 2021 (Resolution 2021-107).
 Policy EM-1.1: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development project applications through the preparation of a biological resources assessment by a qualified biologist. Require such biological resource assessments as part of project approval for proposed development on sites that may support special-status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities, important wildlife corridors, riparian habitat, or regulated wetlands and waters.  Action EM-1.5: Require that major new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.
 Action EM-7.3: Update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years, including but not limited to:
a. A revised greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory;
b. An overview of new knowledge of the causes and anticipated impacts of climate change; c. Collaborate with stakeholders and volunteers to assist in the preparation and implementation of the effective CAP.
d. An assessment of the appropriateness and adequacy of San Carlos’ GHG reduction target; e. A summary of the quantified cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced per emission reduction measure;
f. An evaluation of the effectiveness of existing programs; and

3. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-2 APRIL 202 5
g. Considerations for the use of low-carbon and sustainable materials to reduce embodied carbon in construction and to meet GHG reduction target(s); and hg. Modifications to goals, policies and strategies as needed to achieve the GHG reduction target.

CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-2, Projected Net Change, of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

CHAPTER 4.2 AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2.1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 on page 4.2-50, continuing onto page 4.2-51, of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:

Impact AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project would generate emissions that would could exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDAir District) regional significance thresholds and cumulative contribute to the nonattainment designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current BAAQMD Air District methodology for assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD District-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current BAAQMD Air District Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions. At the time of preparation of this EIR, such practices include:
 Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.

TABLE 3-2 PROJECTED NET CHANGE
Category
Net Change from
Pipeline
Development
Projects
Net Change from
Downtown
Specific Plan
Net Change from
Northeast Area
Specific Plan
Additional Net
Change
Total Projected
Net Change
(2024-2045)
Housing Units 242 1,565 1,890 4,063
4,603 8,300
Population 462 2,990 3,611 8,557 15,620
Non-Residential
Square Footage 2,688,000 420,820 4,178,228 1,640,252 8,927,300 Jobs 8,525 908 12,990 4,107 26,530
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-3
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used.  All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.  Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compact layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.  Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) and shall be verified by the City.

Impact AQ-2.2 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2 on page 4.2-55, continuing onto page 4.2-56, of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:

Impact AQ-2.2: Operation of development projects under the proposed project could generate operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDAir District) regional significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD Air District methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s the Air District’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-4 APRIL 202 5
 Expanding bikeway networks.
 Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
 Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
 Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards.  Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems.  Requiring all-electric buildings.
 Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-emission alternatives.  Implementing organics diversion programs.
 Expanding urban tree planting.

Impact AQ-3 and Mitigation Measure AQ-3 on page 4.2-63, continuing onto page 4.2-64, of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:

Impact AQ-3: Construction emissions associated with future development projects could expose air quality-sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDAir District) project-level and cumulative significance thresholds.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or Overburdened Community, as measured from the property line of the project site to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD the Air District. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by BAAQMD the Air District (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence), the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
 Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions  Electrifying warehousing docks
 Requiring use of newer equipment
 Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
 Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
 Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-5
CHAPTER 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The first paragraph on page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Known occurrences of sensitive species are documented nearby that are not in the CNDDB. Specifically, the dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectans) is known to be located on, or in the immediate vicinity of, an area at the western end of Devonshire Boulevard, and the highest concentrations of nests occur in riparian, coast live oak woodland, and chaparral dominated by chamise and toyon. In addition, the range of Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), a candidate species under the CESA, encompasses the EIR Study Area.

The first paragraph on page 4.3-19 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

As indicated in Table 4.3-1, CNDDB Plant Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, seven special-status plant species are reported to occur within or in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. These consist of Franciscan onion, San Francisco collinsia, western leatherwood, Hillsborough chocolate lily, arcuate bush-mallow, woodland woollythreads, and chaparral ragwort. As indicated in Table 4.3-2, CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, seven special-status animal species are reported to occur within or in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. These consist of pallid bat, western snowy plower, Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, American peregrine falcon, Alameda song sparrow, Edgewood Park micro-blind harvestman, and San Francisco garter snake. As shown in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2, these species have varied legal status or are considered Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW. A few have no special status but are monitored by the CDFW because of recent declines and abundance. In addition, as noted in Section 4.3.1.2, Existing Conditions, the dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectans) is known to be located in the EIR Study Area, and the range of Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), a candidate species under the CESA, encompasses the EIR Study Area.

CHAPTER 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following impact discussion GEO-3 on page 4.6-16 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

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. While Nno known fault traces are located within the EIR Study Area due to certain parts of the EIR Study Area having a high liquefaction potential, and would not result in lateral spreading as a result of fault rupture is a possibility.

CHAPTER 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1 on page 4.7-31 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed project would could exceed the greenhouse (GHG) emissions threshold of no net increase from existing conditions and would therefore not make 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-6 APRIL 202 5
substantial progress toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under Senate Bill (SB) 32 or the carbon neutrality goal under Assembly Bill (AB) 1279.

CHAPTER 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following text is hereby added to the section “State Regulations” on page 4.9-7 of the Draft EIR:

Senate Bill 272
This bill requires a local government within the coastal zone or within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to develop a sea level rise plan as part of either a local coastal program that is subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission, or a subregional San Francisco Bay shoreline resiliency plan that is subject to approval by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, on or before January 1, 2034.

The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of the section “San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission” on page 4.9-8 of the Draft EIR:

BCDC recently adopted in 2024 the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, which was created to provide minimum standards that must be used in subregional shoreline adaption plans, as regulated by Senate Bill 272. These guidelines would require adaption strategies that respond to coastal flood hazards by sea level rise.

CHAPTER 4.15 TRANSPORTATION
The text under “California Department of Transportation” subheading on pages 4.15-2 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Caltrans is the owner and operator of the state highway system, which includes US Highway 101 and El Camino Real within San Carlos. In its 2020 Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), Caltrans developed an approach for evaluating the transportation impacts of land use projects and plans on state highway facilities; this document does not address the impacts of transportation projects. In accordance with current the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, the TISG does not consider vehicle delay in its evaluation of transportation impacts, instead focusing on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The purposes of the TISG include providing guidance to lead agencies regarding when they should analyze potential impacts to the state highway system; to aid Caltrans staff in reviewing projects; and to ensure consistency in the assessment of impacts and identification of non-capacity increasing mitigation measures.

Caltrans also has two plans associated with walking and biking within the Bay Area: the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan. The Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan was adopted in 2021 and identifies challenges and needs related to walking along and across Caltrans roadways. The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan was adopted in 2018 and identifies infrastructure improvements that can enhance bicycle safety and mobility throughout District 4 and remove some of the barriers to bicycling in the region.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
PLACEWORKS 3-7
CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES
Table 5-2 on page 5-5 the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

TABLE 5-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Topic
Proposed
Project a
No Project
Alternative
Reduced Non-Residential
Buildout Alternative
Aesthetics LTS = =
Air Quality SU < <
Biological Resources LTS/M > =
Cultural Resources LTS < <
Energy LTS < =
Geology and Soils LTS < <
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU = <
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS = =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS = =
Land Use and Planning LTS = =
Noise LTS = <
Parks and Recreation LTS = =
Population and Housing LTS = =
Public Services LTS = =
Transportation SU < =
Tribal Cultural Resources LTS > <
Utilities and Service Systems LTS = =
Wildfire SU = =
Notes:
a. The impacts listed in this column represent the highest significance determination for each respective standard of significance.

LTS Less than Significant
LTS/M Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU Significant and Unavoidable
< Lessened impact in comparison to the proposed project = Similar impact in comparison to the proposed project
> Greater impact in comparison to the proposed project
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-8 APRIL 202 5
This page is intentionally left blank.

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

Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix F, Comments Received on the Draft EIR, along with annotations that identify each individual comment number.

4.1 GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
AG1 California Geological Survey, January 1, 2025
AG2 OneShoreline, February 3, 2025
AG3 California Department of Transportation, February 19, 2025 AG4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, February 25, 2025 AG5 San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, February 25, 2025 AG6 Sequoia Union High School District, March 3, 2025

4.2 PUBLIC HEARING ORAL COMMENTS
PH1 Public Comments at the Planning and Transportation Commission, February 3, 2025

4. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

LIST OF COMMENTERS
4-2 APRIL 202 5
This page is intentionally left blank.

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

Responses to comments are provided in this chapter alongside the text of each corresponding comment. Letters are categorized by:
 Governmental Agencies
 Public Hearing Oral Comments
Letters are arranged by category, date received, and name. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. Where a response requires revisions to the Draft EIR, these revisions are shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. Table 5-1, Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIR, presents comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to each of those comments. Table 5-1 includes figures and tables included in the comment letters at a reduced image resolution. To view the images at full resolution, please refer to the original comment letters in Appendix F, Comments Received on the Draft EIR.

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

5. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-2 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 5-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR Comment # Comment Response
Governmental Agencies
AG1 California Geological Survey, 1/31/2025
AG1-1 Dear Akanksha Chopra, The California Geological Survey (CGS) has received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset.

This email conveys recommendations from CGS concerning
geologic issues related to the project area as addressed in the DEIR.

This comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses AG1-2 through AG1-3.

AG1-2 1. Liquefaction Hazards
The project area is located within an earthquake zone of required investigation (ZORI) for liquefaction mapped by CGS in accordance with the 1990 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The DEIR and supporting documents, in addressing this hazard, should mention the ZORI, include a map showing
their extent in the project area, and explicitly address the regulatory implications of the zone for future development.

Additional information regarding liquefaction and ZORI is available at the links below:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehous e/eqzapp/
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehous e/regulatorymaps/
As discussed in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, on page 4.6-9 of the Draft EIR, liquefaction potential within the EIR Study Area ranges from very low to very high.

AG1-3 2. Lateral Spreading Hazards
The DEIR states “No known fault traces are located within the EIR Study Area and would not result in lateral spreading as a result of fault rupture.” CGS notes that lateral
spreading is a secondary effect of earthquake shaking
associated with liquefaction and is not, in general, directly related to surface fault rupture. Thus, the absence of
mapped fault traces does not imply the absence of a lateral spreading hazard, especially in an area with a significant liquefaction hazard. Lateral spreading should be addressed independently of fault rupture.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, impact discussion GEO-3 on page 4.6-16 of the Draft EIR has been revised to clarify that certain parts of the EIR Study Area have a high liquefaction potential and that therefore lateral spreading is a possibility.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-3
Comment # Comment Response
If you have any additional comments or questions, please feel free to call or email.

AG2 OneShoreline, 2/3/2025
AG2-1 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners:

I had hoped to make a public comment in person this
evening but unfortunately, I'm unable to attend so please consider the following as you discuss this topic, which is very important to the future of this City.

We have several efforts that benefit San Carlos, from
funding restoration and stormwater detention projects
along Belmont Creek upstream of where it forms the San
Carlos boundary, to removing debris along that Creek and along Cordilleras Creek in the areas that flood our City, to shoreline adaptation projects with San Carlos and its
neighboring cities.

This comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses AG2-2 through AG2-4.

AG2-2 Today, I write about another major OneShoreline effort: to provide uniform guidance and template language for
general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and
development agreements so that private developments and public infrastructure can function for their intended lifespan and contribute to community resilience without having to undergo costly retrofits in the future.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-4 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
The picture below taken six weeks ago in an area affected by tides today provides an example for why requirements for long-term resilience, such as setbacks from, and no
underground parking / key infrastructure immediately
adjacent to, creeks and shorelines
should be part of our zoning and enforced.

AG2-3 OneShoreline is now working on a similar effort related to the public infrastructure that makes our communities livable (stormwater and wastewater systems, roads, parks, marinas, and utilities).

Here is an image of Laurel Street in San Carlos, which is not generally thought of as a floodway.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. • m:i:1Em€J:3NflftEiilfil~<fli• ·ll!I·:lli·U:U· ~~
.• ~fi)ll:!gl)~
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-5
Comment # Comment Response
AG2-4 We applaud the City of San Carlos for its work thus far to incorporate climate resilience language into its key
documents. Today, in the document before you, I
encourage you to ensure that this is done at every
opportunity and is unambiguous.

Please ask yourselves: am I confident that the proposed text regarding commercial and housing developments,
transportation, or parks will lead to specific City
requirements — soon — to ensure that a new asset being
proposed will function for its lifespan during increasingly large storms and higher tides and groundwater? If the
answer is no, please add language to the General Plan
document that will give you that confidence.

While a General Plan, and certainly a Climate Action Plan, will not by itself make us resilient to the impacts of climate change, a zoning ordinance that includes strong resilience requirements can make a difference. OneShoreline has seen the benefits of this in the cities we work with, so please add this to the San Carlos General Plan to help us achieve that goal for us and future generations.

The General Plan's Environmental Management Element and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element include policies and actions related to climate change adaptation, including planning for resilience against flooding from storms and sea level rise. The policies under Environmental Safety and Public Services (Goal ESPS -11) also promote coordination with State, regional, and local agencies, including
OneShoreline, in planning for sea level rise and developing response options. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

AG3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2/19/2025 AG3-1 Dear Akanksha Chopra:

Thank you for including the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review
process for the 2045 General Plan Reset. The Local
This comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses AG3-2 through AG3-9.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-6 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use
projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the January 2025 DEIR.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Sections of U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101) and State Route (SR) 82 are within the San Carlos City limits and are likely to be impacted by future developments under the General Plan.

AG3-2 Travel Demand Analysis
The project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and
significance determination are undertaken in a manner
consistent with the City’s adopted Transportation
Significance Criteria. Under these criteria any development that produces 15 percent less than the regional average VMT per service population, per capita, and per employee is considered less than significant.

Per the DEIR, the proposed project VMT impacts were
determined to be significant and unavoidable. Caltrans
acknowledges that the DEIR has identified Mitigation
Measure TRAN-2 to help mitigate potential VMT impacts
from future developments by amending the City’s
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to
increase the required trip reduction to the extent feasible.

The City is encouraged to review the 2023 Caltrans
The City will take into account the 2023 Caltrans
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Toolbox and the
Final Report for the VMT/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Model
Mitigation Program as part of future TDM Program updates.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-7
Comment # Comment Response
Transportation Demand Management Toolbox (link), which
may contain additional TDM requirements and incentives
not already discussed in the City’s TDM program and
General Plan.

Please additionally note that the City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) recently
published its Final Report for the VMT/Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Model Mitigation Program (link). The VMT/GHG
Model Mitigation Program was awarded through Caltrans’
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program and
intends to assist project sponsors and developers in
identifying feasible options for mitigating VMT and GHG emission impacts of land use and VMT-inducing
transportation projects in the County. The City is
encouraged to collaborate with Caltrans and C/CAG to
explore more citywide or regional VMT mitigation options where feasible.

AG3-3 Mitigation Strategies
Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework Guide defines a place type based on four physical elements: built form, land use, mobility options, and people. Based on the Smart Mobility Framework 2022, the proposed project area is identified as an urban community that typically consists of moderately dense urban design, that are mostly residential but with mixed-use centers. Housing is varied in density and type.

Transit is available to connect neighborhoods to multiple destinations. Street networks are fine-grained with good connectivity for pedestrians and limited connectivity for bicyclists.

Please see Response AG3-2.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-8 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
• Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
• Locate Developments in Area with High Destination
Accessibility
• Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas • Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
• Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
• Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards
• Provide Secure Bike Parking, especially near transit
• Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
• Create Urban Non-motorized zones
• Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
• Implement Shared Vehicle Program (car/bike/Ebike/scooter) • Limit Residential Parking Supply
• Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
AG3-4 Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share
contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation
responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

As part of its consideration of certification of this EIR, the City of San Carlos will consider adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program that will outline the
implementation responsibilities of the lead agency.

AG3-5 Fair Share Contributions
We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share
contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit
improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to
regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-9
Comment # Comment Response
AG3-6 Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing
conditions for walking and biking along and across the STN in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of locationbased and prioritized needs.

Please note that any Complete Streets reference should be updated to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (link) that highlights the importance of addressing the needs of nonmotorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR has been revised to include discussion of the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021), the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018), and the Caltrans Director’s Policy 37.
filf. lD Tille Scope Open Funding•
Period (millions)
This program includes funding to
Corridor & implement interchange improvements
Interchange at SR-92, 3rd Ave, Holly Sf, Peninsula
21-T06-027 Improvements Ave, Produce Ave, Sierra Point Pkvl/y, 2021- $901 I US-IOI I University Ave, Willow Rd, and 2035 San Mateo Woodside Rd; and funding for a
County planning study to scope interchange
improvements at Candlestick.

This program includes funding to
implement BRT improvements to
BRT I existing bus service along El Camino
Modernization Real from Daly City BART to Palo Alto 2036- 21-TIQ--078 I SamTrans I Coltrain Station. Improvements include 2050 $352 El Camino frequency upgrades ( 15-minute peak
Real headways) , dedicated lanes (45% of
route), transit priority infrastructure and
transit signal priority.

This program includes funding to
implement new express bus service
Express Bus I along US-101 and 1-280 (on express
21-Tl2-t 19 Service lanes where available) from Foster City, 2021- $478 Expansion I San Mateo and Burtlngame to 2035 Samlrans Downtown San Francisco; from San
Mateo and Palo AJto to Western San
Francisco; and from San Bruno to
Sunnyvale. Improvements include ~
and-ride facilities, ramp improvements
and bus stop improvements (20-minute
peak headways),
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-10 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
AG3-7 Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or
excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a
transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.

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

AG3-8 Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA)
Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during
construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

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

AG3-9 Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary
traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

The Office of Encroachment Permit requires 100% complete design plans and supporting documents to review and
circulate the permit application package. The review and approval of encroachment projects is managed through the Encroachment Permits Office Process (EPOP) or the Project Delivery Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP),
depending on project scope, complexity, and completeness of the application. Please use the following resources to determine the appropriate review process:
- TR-0416 Applicant’s Checklist (link)
- Flowchart, Figure 1.2 in Chapter 100 – The Permit Function, Caltrans Encroachment Permit Manual (link)
The permit approval may take 30 days to 6 months or more The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-11
Comment # Comment Response
depending on the project scope, size, complexity,
completeness, compliance with policies and quality of the permit package submitted. Projects requiring exceptions to design standards or external agency approvals may need
more time to process.

To obtain more information and download the permit
application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). When the applicant is ready to pursue a Caltrans encroachment permit, please contact
[email protected] to initiate the process.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Luana Chen, Transportation
Planner, via [email protected]. For future early
coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].

AG4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2/25/2025 AG4-1 Dear Akanksha Chopra:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
received a Notice of Availability of a Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) from the City of San Carlos (City) for the 2045 General Plan Reset (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. CDFW previously submitted
comments in response to the Notice of Preparation of the DPEIR.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and
recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments
regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the
The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses AG4-2 through AG4-27.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-12 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

AG4-2 CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and
management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological
expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to
exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA)
regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.)
Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

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

AG4-3 California Endangered Species Act and Native Plant Protection Act
Please be advised that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-13
Comment # Comment Response
“take” of plants or animals listed under CESA or NPPA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Under CESA, take is defined as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation. If the Project will impact CESA or NPPA listed species, early
consultation with CDFW is encouraged, as significant
modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain an ITP. Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify
impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish and Game Code, §§
3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515.)
CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a
Project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001(c),
21083, and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15380, 15064, 15065).

Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-thansignificant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project
proponent’s obligation to comply with Fish and Game Code, § 2080 et. seq.

AG4-4 Lake and Streambed Alteration
CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for Project activities
affecting lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-14 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
stream. Work within ephemeral streams, drainage ditches, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and
floodplains are generally subject to notification
requirements. In addition, infrastructure installed beneath such aquatic features, such as through hydraulic directional drilling, is also generally subject to notification
requirements. Any impacts to the mainstems, tributaries and floodplains or associated riparian habitat would likely require an LSA Notification. CDFW, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider the DPEIR for the Project. CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as the responsible agency.

AG4-5 Raptors and Other Nesting Birds
CDFW has authority over actions that may result in the
disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the
unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include §§ 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird). Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

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

AG4-6 Fully Protected Species
Fully protected species, such as San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataennia), California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus, formerly California clapper rail) or California Black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
•Take is for necessary scientific research;
•Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or
The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-15
Comment # Comment Response
threatened species, live capture and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock; or
•They are a covered species whose conservation and
management is provided for in a Natural Community
Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an ITP for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (Fish & G. Code §2081.15).

Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process.

AG4-7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of San Carlos
Objective: The objective of the Project is to plan for the growth of San Carlos over a 20-year time horizon and to:
allow for a mix of development to support the City’s
economic resiliency and to sustain a robust local economy; preserve, protect, and promote industrial, commercial, and office uses to maintain a thriving ecosystem of local
businesses and to provide for local jobs; provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of a diverse community, as outlines in the 2023-2031 Housing Element and for future Housing Element cycles; and make minor updates to the
2030 General Plan to reference recent City initiatives, plans, or new State regulations.

Location: City of San Carlos, San Mateo County, CA 94070.

Timeframe: 2025-2045
The comment correctly summarizes the proposed project. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

AG4-8 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to
assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating This comment provides information on the recommendations that follow. Please see Responses AG4-9 through AG4-16. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-16 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be
included to improve the document.

AG4-9 I.Project Description and Related Impact Shortcoming COMMENT 1: Program EIR Subsequent Project Review
The Project EIR has been prepared as a draft Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 but the Program EIR does not include a checklist for subsequent project review. While Program EIRs have a necessarily broad scope, CDFW recommends providing as much information related
to anticipated future activities as possible. CDFW recognizes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15152,
subdivision (c), if a Lead Agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR or large-scale planning approval, the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible and can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the Lead Agency prepares a future
environmental document. This future environmental
document would cover a project of a more limited
geographical scale and is appropriate if the deferred
information does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. The CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(4) states, “Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the
operation were within the scope of the program EIR.” Based on CEQA Guidelines section 15183.3 and associated
Appendix N Checklist, and consistent with other program EIRs, CDFW recommends creating a procedure or checklist The commenter's recommendation is noted. There is no
requirement to have such a checklist at this time in the General Plan or CEQA process. Where future specific
development projects qualify for the CEQA streamlining
options described by the commenter, the City will continue to use its standard process and rely on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, as is or as modified, to determine which potential impacts have been adequately addressed in this program-level EIR and which require additional analysis and project-specific mitigation. Please see Section 3.6, Intended Uses of the EIR, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, for a description of how the City will use the
programmatic analysis in this EIR when a new development project is filed with the City.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-17
Comment # Comment Response
for evaluating subsequent Project impacts on biological resources to determine if they are within the scope of the Program EIR or if an additional environmental document is warranted. This checklist should be included as an
attachment to the EIR. Future analysis should include all special-status species and sensitive habitat including but not limited to species considered rare, threatened, or
endangered species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15380.

When used appropriately, the checklist should be
accompanied by enough relevant information and
reasonable inferences to support a “within the scope” of the EIR conclusion. For subsequent Project activities that may affect sensitive biological resources, a site-specific analysis should be prepared by a Qualified Biologist to provide the necessary supporting information. In addition, the checklist should cite the specific portions of the EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the
subsequent Project activities’ significant effects and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the EIR.

AG4-10 II. Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Related Impact Shortcomings
MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the Project
have potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species? And,
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species Table 4.3-2, CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, in Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, lists the American peregrine falcon and the Alameda song sparrow
occurring in the EIR Study Area. These two species are also discussed in impact discussion BIO-1. Within impact discussion BIO-1 on page 4.3-19 the Draft EIR states: "Development in locations abutting or in the vicinity of open space lands or water resources, where special-status species are more likely to occur, could potentially cause a significant impact to, or cause the inadvertent loss, of bird nests in active use, conflicting with both the MBTA and CFGC." The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft EIR does not mention Action 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-18 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
COMMENT 2: Nesting Birds, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3- 20 Issue: Nesting birds, including American Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and Alameda song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia pusillula), have the potential to nest on the ground, in trees, on structures, or in vegetation within and in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. The DPEIR states that “development in locations abutting or in the vicinity of open space lands or water resources, where special status species are more likely to occur, could potentially cause a significant impact to, or cause the inadvertent loss, of bird nests in active use.” Though not mentioned in the DIER, the City of San Carlos General Plan Environmental Management Element contains an action item (Action EM-1.5) requiring “major new buildings and taller structures that extend
above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to
reduce bird strikes.” However, the DPEIR lacks specific avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to protect nesting birds sufficient to reduce potential impacts to lessthan-significant levels.

Specific impact, why the impact would occur, and evidence the impact would be significant: The federal MBTA and
California Fish and Game Code protect migratory and
nesting birds, including species with potential to occur in the Project area (e.g., American falcon and Alameda song
sparrow). The nesting seasons for passerines, owls, and EM-1.5; it is discussed in impact discussion BIO-5 for its potential to prevent interference with the movement of
wildlife species.

The proposed 2045 General Plan Reset is a policy-level
document that does not include any development projects.

The certification of the EIR or the approval of the proposed project does not approve or deny any potential future
development in the City of San Carlos or the EIR Study Area.

As described in Section 3.6, Intended Uses of the EIR, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, this EIR is intended to review potential environmental impacts
associated with the adoption and implementation of the
proposed project and determine corresponding mitigation measures, as necessary. This EIR is a program-level EIR and does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual
developments that may occur under the buildout horizon of the proposed project. Each specific future project will conduct separate environmental review, as required by CEQA, to
secure the necessary discretionary development permits.

Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered off this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address impacts of individual projects. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the 2045 General Plan Reset and this EIR. Because the General Plan is a program-level
document, the specific details of future projects and the conditions at the time they are proposed are not known. It would be speculative to estimate any potential long-term or permanent changes, including those to the regulatory setting, and CEQA does not allow for speculation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). When a new development project is filed with the City, it is reviewed for completeness and consistency with 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-19
Comment # Comment Response
raptors range from February 15- August 30, January 15-
September 15, and February 15- September 15, respectively.

Recommendation 2: CDFW recommends the PEIR include
avoidance and minimization measures to protect nesting
birds by incorporating the mitigation measure below to
reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels:

Recommended Nesting Bird Mitigation Measure: If Project grading or construction is scheduled to take place between January 15 – September 15, a preconstruction survey of the Project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist experienced with the nesting
behavior of bird species of the region. The survey shall determine if active nests are present within the planned area of disturbance or within 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for accipiters and 1,000 feet for buteos. The survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the
commencement of construction activities, and a second
focused survey shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to construction activities that would occur during the
nesting/breeding season. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional
preconstruction survey shall be conducted such that no
more than two weeks will have elapsed between the last
survey and the commencement of ground disturbance
activities. If a lapse of Project-related activities of seven days or longer occurs, another focused survey will be conducted before Project activities can be reinitiated.

If an active bird nest is found within the survey radii, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. A protective buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist based on the site conditions such as the General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and City codes and practices. Because City policies, actions, and codes, presented in this program EIR will minimize impacts,
development projects will inherently implement these
measures to: (a) mitigate environmental impacts and (b) achieve consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City codes. Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, where the “project” subject to CEQA is a “plan, policy, regulation, or other public project,” the obligation to mitigate impacts can be effectuated “by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design” (CEQA Statute Section 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4(a)(2)).

As described in impact discussion BIO-1 in the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan includes Policy EM-1.1 to ensure that potential impacts to biological resources are carefully evaluated as part of specific development applications. In response to the commenter's comments, Policy EM-1.1 has been amended and expanded, as shown in Chapter 3,
Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, to specify that a biological resources assessment is required for any
development sites that support habitat special-status species, sensitive natural communities, important wildlife corridors, or regulated wetlands and waters. The purpose of a site-specific biological resource assessment prepared by a qualified
biologist is to identify special-status species that may be impacted by potential future development and identify siteand species-specific mitigation measures. The project-specific biological resource assessments would determine what siteand project-specific mitigation measures would be required for sensitive natural communities at the time of the proposed development throughout the 20-year buildout horizon (2025 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-20 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
whether the nest is in a line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting. Typical protective buffers are as follows: 1) 250 feet for passerines, 2) 500 feet for accipiters, and 3) 1,000 feet for buteos. No Project
personnel or equipment shall be allowed to enter the
protective buffer until the qualified biologist determines that the young have fully fledged and will no longer be adversely affected by the Project.

The qualified biologist shall observe any identified active nests prior to the start of any construction-related activities to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and any nestlings, and the nest site(s) shall be monitored by the biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and
flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings.
to 2045) of the proposed project, to ensure sensitive
resources identified at the time of future project
developments are adequately protected or appropriate
project-specific compensatory mitigation is provided as part of new development to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level; this approach is appropriate for this citywide, programlevel EIR. Site-specific biological resources assessments and field surveys prepared by qualified biologists would follow agency-promulgated protocols and recommended methods
and standards of review—including consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service—and would rely on standard protocol sources. This revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification. While the City appreciates the recommended mitigation measures provided by the commenter, these
mitigation measures include specific controls and
requirements that could be subject to considerable revision over the 20-year buildout horizon, may in fact not be
applicable to conditions found on a particular site, or may not be appropriate for each specific development application received by the City.

AG4-11 COMMENT 3: Bats, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20 Issue: The DPEIR states that special-status bats such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) have the potential to occur within the EIR Study Area and that there exists potential for species loss or disruption “due to conversion of areas of Pallid bat is listed in Table 4.3-2, CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, in the Draft EIR as an animal with
occurrences in the EIR Study Area. Pallid bat is also discussed as a special-status species in impact discussion BIO-1 in the Draft EIR. Regarding the commenter's recommendations,
please see Response AG4-10.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-21
Comment # Comment Response
natural habitat, removal of trees and other vegetation, increases in light and noise, and other modifications and disturbance,” a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

The DPEIR does not include measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potentially significant impacts to roosting bats.

Specific impact, why the impact would occur, and evidence the impact would be significant: Bats play an important role in Bay Area ecosystems, through pest control, pollination and seed dispersal. Recent studies estimate that bat
consumption of insect pests results in more than $3 billion in agricultural production savings per year in the U.S. (USFWS 2025). Bats are known to roost under bridges, in caves and mines, on buildings, in cliff crevices, in tree foliage, bark, and hollows, and in riprap, with habitat use varying temporally and seasonally. Suitability of bat roosting habitat is
dependent on temperature, protection from predators and inclement weather, and proximity to foraging sites. Habitat reduction and disruption of hibernation and maternity
roosts due to human development and activity have
contributed to steep population declines in California and across the globe. Many bat species are long lived, with most females birthing only one to two young per year. Due to low reproductive rates and sensitivity of breeding females to disruption, maternity colonies affected by human activities that temporarily reduce fecundity or mortality may require multiple years to recover following disturbance events
(California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019).

Recommendation 3: CDFW recommends including
avoidance and minimization measures to protect bats that have the potential to occur within the PEIR Study Area, and 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-22 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
recommends incorporating the following mitigation
measure:

Recommended Bat Mitigation Measure: At any Project site where trees or abandoned buildings would be removed or
heavily modified, prior to Project activities that would remove trees or modify buildings, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats. The habitat
assessment shall be conducted a minimum of 30 to 90 days prior to the beginning of Project activities.

For tree removal, the habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliating bark for colonial species, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species). If suitable habitat is found, it shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked. Trees shall be removed only if:
a) Presence of bats is presumed or documented during
surveys in trees with suitable habitat, and removal using the two-step removal process detailed below occurs only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through April 15, and September 1 through October 15, or; b) After a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats.

Two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two
consecutive days. On the first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using
chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-23
Comment # Comment Response
fissures shall be avoided. On the second day the remainder of the tree shall be removed.

For modification of buildings, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting bats. If roosting bats are detected, a bat avoidance and exclusion plan shall be
implemented. The plan shall recognize that both maternity and winter roosting seasons are vulnerable times for bats and require exclusion outside of these times, generally between March 1 and April 15, or September 1 and October 15 when temperatures are sufficiently warm. Work
operations shall cease if bats are found roosting within the Project area, and CDFW shall be consulted.

For loss of suitable bat habitat trees or impacts to buildings or structures occupied by bats subject to bat avoidance measures, the Project shall provide habitat mitigation in the form of:
1) Native tree planting at an appropriate ratio to offset canopy and temporal habitat loss and tree planting
maintenance for a minimum of five years and until success criteria are met, or;
2) Establishing suitable bat habitat structures.

A qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a bat habitat mitigation plan to CDFW and obtain CDFW’s approval of the plan prior to the start of Project activities, and shall implement the plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

AG4-12 COMMENT 4: San Francisco Garter Snake, Section 4.3.3,

Page 4 ends

Issue: San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) has the potential to occur within the Project Study Area, but the DPEIR does not The San Francisco Garter Snake is listed in Table 4.3-2, CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, in the Draft EIR as an animal with occurrences in the EIR Study Area. The San Francisco Garter Snake is also discussed as a special-status species in impact discussion BIO-1 in the Draft EIR. Regarding 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-24 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
adequately discuss or evaluate to what extent Project
development could cause direct and/or indirect impacts to SFGS individuals or habitat. Additional impact assessment information is needed for CDFW to confirm Project
protective measures will avoid direct and/or indirect impacts to SFGS and their habitat Delineations of SFGS habitat
components by a qualified expert are necessary to
determine areas where these species may occur within the Project area.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence
impact would be significant: SFGS is a State Fully Protected species and is listed as endangered under CESA. SFGS
require a variety of habitats, including aquatic breeding habitat and upland dispersal habitat. SFGS have been
documented to disperse up to half a mile from aquatic
breeding sites. Far-dispersing individuals provide genetic diversity to distant breeding sites and thus aid the survival of small, disparate populations. Construction and maintenance activities in suitable habitat could result in direct and indirect take to SFGS. Project development could injure or kill SFGS if they occur on-site, potentially resulting in a substantial reduction of their populations. Indirect take may occur due to upland habitat loss and degraded site
suitability for SFGS to complete all stages of their life cycle.

SFGS are endemic snakes with a highly limited range in the San Francisco Peninsula. They utilize a variety of habitats including upland sites for basking, rodent burrows for
shelter and low-lying marsh for feeding and reproduction (USFWS 1985). In coastal areas, SFGS may hibernate during the winter in small mammal burrows (USFWS, 2007). SFGS
are threatened by loss of habitat from agricultural,
the commenter's recommendations, please see Response
AG4-10.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-25
Comment # Comment Response
commercial, and urban development, illegal collection by reptile breeders, and decline of their prey species, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii).

SFGS are CESA listed as endangered species and therefore are a threatened or endangered species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if SFGS are injured or killed, or their habitat is removed as a result of Project development, the Project may result in a substantial
reduction in the number or restriction in the range of a threatened species or endangered species, which is
considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Recommendation 4: CDFW recommends the PEIR include
additional information to facilitate meaningful review and understanding of Project impacts on SFGS habitat and
populations. Protective buffers should be identified in the PEIR and include migration corridors, breeding and nonbreeding habitat, as well as adjacent land necessary to protect these areas. Establishing appropriately sized
construction buffers and protected areas that consider both short- and long-range SFGS dispersal is essential to protect SFGS individuals, populations, and habitat. Specifically, the PEIR should describe the extent of temporary and
permanent impacts that would occur to SFGS breeding
and/or upland habitat. Additionally, CDFW recommends the PEIR incorporate the following mitigation measure:

Recommended San Francisco Garter Snake Mitigation
Measure: The Project and all tiered projects shall be
designed to avoid impacts to SFGS individuals and habitat.

Protocol-level surveys for SFGS individuals and habitat shall be performed by an agency-approved qualified biologist
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-26 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
prior to construction in or adjacent to potentially suitable SFGS aquatic and/or upland habitat, including wetlands, riparian areas, grasslands near ponds/wetlands, or other sensitive habitat, following survey protocols approved by USFWS and CDFW. An agency-approved qualified biologist, in consultation with USFWS and CDFW, shall determine
appropriate, site-specific buffers to protect SFGS breeding and upland habitat prior to conducting grading or other construction activities.

AG4-13 COMMENT 5: Crotch’s Bumble Bee, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3- 18- 4.3-20
Issue: The DPEIR does not identify potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii, CBB). The current range of CBB encompasses the proposed EIR Study Area,
and proposed Project activities could impact bumble bees if they are present on-site. The DPEIR does not include
avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures to protect potential CBB that may occur within the Project area.

Specific impacts, why they may occur and be potentially significant: CBB is a candidate species under CESA and
therefore should be considered a threatened, endangered, or rare species under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15380. Many bumble bee species, including CBB,
once common in the western United States, have undergone a dramatic decline in both distribution and abundance and are now extirpated from much of their historic ranges. Many bumble bees are threatened with extinction due primarily to reductions in habitat from urbanization, intensive
agriculture, and invasive species introductions.

Bumble bees, including CBB, are found in a wide variety of As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, mention of the range of Crotch’s bumble bee has been added to Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR.

Regarding the commenter's recommendations, please see
Response AG4-10.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-27
Comment # Comment Response
natural, agricultural, urban and rural habitats, and require suitable nesting and overwintering sites as well as
availability of nectar and pollen from floral resources (Hatfield et al. 2018). Potential nest habitat utilized from late February to late October includes underground
abandoned small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses and/or thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, or hollow logs. Overwintering sites are utilized from November through early February by mated queens in self-excavated hibernacula, and could be present in soft, disturbed soil, sand, well-drained or loose soils, under leaf litter or other debris with ground cover requisites such as barren areas, tree litter, and bare patches within short grass in areas lacking dense vegetation. Any near-surface or
subsurface ground disturbance within Project sites could result in the direct take of bumble bee colonies or
overwintering queens.

Bumble bees are generalist foragers, and do not depend on any one flower type, often visiting native and non-native flowering plants alike to collect the pollen and nectar resources needed to sustain their colonies and provision nest cells. Vegetation removal, including removal of any flowering plants or trees within the EIR Study Area, could impact bumble bee habitat.

If CBB are injured or killed, or their habitat is removed as a result of Project development, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number or restriction in the range of a threatened species or endangered species, a
Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-28 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
Recommendation 5: CDFW recommends the PEIR provide an
assessment of the potential for the Project to impact CBB, and to incorporate the following mitigation measure to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on CBB.

Recommended Crotch’s Bumble Bee Mitigation Measure:

CBB habitat assessments shall be performed in Project sites that may provide suitable CBB habitat and that could be impacted by Project development. The habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable with the life history and ecological requirements of CBB, and include all areas of suitable overwintering, nesting, and foraging habitats within 100 feet of proposed work areas.

In areas with potential CBB habitat, pre-construction surveys for CBB individuals shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist between March to August. Surveys shall include a minimum of three survey efforts, over a three-day period within a temperature range of 15C and 30C. If the qualified biologist suspects CBB detection or occupancy, CDFW shall be consulted immediately. CBB survey results shall be
considered valid for one year at a given site, but additional surveys shall be performed prior to ground-disturbing
activities at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. If surveys document the presence of CBB within Project sites, the City shall consult with CDFW prior to construction to determine if a CESA ITP
authorization is required.

Further, if CBB are detected during surveys, the qualified biologist shall identify the location of all nests in or adjacent to Project sites. If nests are identified, a minimum 45-foot no-disturbance buffer zones shall be established around 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-29
Comment # Comment Response
nests. The qualified biologist shall expand buffer zones as necessary to prevent disturbance and avoid take.

This location shall be no more than 4,900 feet (1.5-
kilometers) from any identified nest. Replaced floral
resources may be split into multiple patches to meet
distance requirements for multiple nests.

AG4-14 COMMENT 6: California Ridgway’s Rail and California Black Rail, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20
Issue: The DPEIR depicts the Study Area as occurring
adjacent to and upstream of northern coastal salt marsh habitat that supports populations of California Ridgway’s rail (CRRA) and California black rail (BLRA). The extent of the Study Area contains coastal creeks that drain into San
Francisco Bay through a series of sloughs along Bair Island and may serve as wildlife movement corridors for species that are known to occur in the vicinity. Though the DPEIR identifies CRRA and BLRA as occurring in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area, it does not include analysis of the potential for Project development to impact these species, nor does it include measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate potentially significant impacts to CRRA or BLRA.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence
impact would be significant: CRRA is a state and federally endangered and state fully protected species, and BLRA is a The California black rail is listed in Table 4.3-2, CNDDB Animal Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, and California Ridgway’s rail is mapped on Figure 4.3-2, Special-Status Animals and Critical Habitats, in the Draft EIR as animals with occurrences in the EIR Study Area. Regarding the commenter's
recommendations, please see Response AG4-10.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-30 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
state threatened and state fully protected species. These species are at great conservation risk and are experiencing serious population declines or range retractions. Project activities could include impacts such as generation of noise, groundwork, and operation and movement of equipment
and workers that would have the potential to disturb CRRA or BLRA foraging, roosting, and nesting. Direct mortality of CRRA or BLRA could occur through nest abandonment, loss of potential foraging habitat resulting in reduced
reproductive success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young), inadvertent entrapment or entrainment, or
impingement.

If CRRA or BLRA are injured or killed, or their habitat is removed as a result of Project development, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number or restriction in the range of a threatened species or endangered species, a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Recommendation 6: CDFW recommends the PEIR provide an
assessment of the potential for the Project to impact CRRA and BLRA, and incorporate the following mitigation measure to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on these species.

Recommended CRRA and BLRA Mitigation Measure: A CDFW
and USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct protocol-level surveys of CRRA and BLRA in all suitable habitats adjacent to the Project using the 2017 California Clapper Rail Survey Protocol to determine where CRRA or BLRA are present in each year of construction (Wood et al. 2017). CDFW staff are available to collaborate to incorporate calls of BLRA into the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-31
Comment # Comment Response
protocol to ensure that both species are sufficiently
surveyed.

If CRRA or BLRA are found in suitable habitat near the
Project site, appropriate buffers shall be incorporated to avoid and minimize impacts to CRRA and BLRA. A 700-foot no-work buffer shall be implemented between construction activities and any current-year breeding CRRA and BLRA
detections if construction cannot be avoided during the rail breeding season (January 15- August 31 for CRRA, February 1- August 31 for BLRA). If establishing a 700-foot buffer around, breeding rail detections is not feasible, noise reducing modifications to equipment as well as portable acoustic barriers/blankets placed near noise sources may be appropriate to reduce auditory and visual impacts to
breeding rails. Note that these noise reduction features may be appropriate regardless of time of year to minimize
impacts to foraging rails as well. A qualified avian biologist shall advise and support buffer establishment in
consultation with CDFW.

Fully protected species such as CRRA and BLRA may not be taken or possessed at any time. In the event a fully
protected species is found within or adjacent to the Project site, an agency-approved qualified biologist shall implement an appropriate no-disturbance buffer and allow the
individual to leave the Project site of its own volition. The qualified biologist shall also be on-site during all Project activities to ensure that fully protected species are not being disturbed by Project activities.

AG4-15 COMMENT 7: Special-Status Plants, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3- 18- 4.3-20
Special-status plants are listed in Table 4.3-1, CNDDB Plant Occurrences in the EIR Study Area, and are also discussed in 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-32 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
Issue: The DPEIR identifies the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the Study Area, including Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum), San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor), western
leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), Hillsborough chocolate lily (Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana), arcuate bushmallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus), woodland
woolleythreads (Monolopia gracilens), chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), yet the DPEIR does not provide avoidance, minimization or mitigation
measures to address potential temporary or permanent
impacts to these species due to Project development.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence
impact would be significant: Hillsborough chocolate lily and Contra Costa goldfields have a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) or 1B.1, and Franciscan onion, San Francisco collinsia, western leatherwood, arcuate bushmallow, woodland
woolleythreads, alkali milk-vetch, and San Joaquin
spearscale all have a CRPR of 1B.2. Plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened. Most plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century.

The additional threat rank of 0.1 and 0.2 indicates that over 80 percent, and 20 to 80 percent of their occurrences are threatened, respectively. Chaparral ragwort has a CRPR of 2B.2, and is threatened in California but more common
elsewhere, with 20 to 80 percent of its occurrences
threatened.
impact discussion BIO-1 in the Draft EIR. Regarding the commenter's recommendations, please see Response AG4-10. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-33
Comment # Comment Response
The conservation of special-status native plants is essential to maintaining biodiversity in the California Bay Area. Native plants are better adapted to the local environment, allowing them to grow more efficiently, require less maintenance, and provide habitat resources for other native species
(Berthon et al. 2020). Industrial land development is a leading threat to endangered plant communities, causing resource depletion through direct habitat replacement and increased input of pollutants into the environment (Czech et al. 2000). Limited distribution and small population sizes of special-status plants can increase the difficulty in species detection, and robust survey efforts are imperative to
determine whether plant species protected under the CESA and NPPA occur within the Project area. Robust and timely survey efforts are a necessary first step in avoiding take of listed species.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, section 15380, the status of special-status plants as CRPR 1 or 2 species qualifies them as endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA
(see: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/california-rareplant-ranks). If special-status plants occur within or adjacent to Project sites and would be directly or indirectly impacted by Project development, the Project may result in a
substantial reduction in the number or restriction in the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species, a
mandatory finding of significance pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a).

Recommendation 7: CDFW recommends the PEIR
incorporate the following mitigation measure to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on special-status plants.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-34 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
Recommended Special-Status Plant Mitigation Measure:

Prior to construction at all Project sites not composed of hardscape or ornamental vegetation, a qualified biologist shall conduct botanical surveys during the appropriate
blooming period and conditions for all special-status plants that have the potential to occur at or adjacent to each site where plants could be indirectly impacted. Surveys shall be conducted following CDFW’s Protocol for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities
(https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SurveyProtocols#377281280-plants) and include checking reference sites for target special-status plant species. Per this protocol, more than one year of surveys may be
necessary if, for example, lack of rain inhibits growth of annual plants. If any special-status plant species are
observed, the Project shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and provide an avoidance plan to CDFW and obtain CDFW written approval of the plan. If full avoidance is not possible, Project activities may not
commence until the Project has consulted with CDFW and
obtained CDFW’s written approval prior to the start of
construction, which may include salvaging topsoil,
transplanting and monitoring individuals, compensatory
habitat mitigation, or other measures, based on the life history of the species and other relevant factors.

AG4-16 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?
COMMENT 8: Riparian Delineation and Setbacks, Section
Riparian habitats are discussed in the existing conditions section of the Draft EIR on page 4.3-8. Riparian habitats are also discussed in impact discussion BIO-2 in the Draft EIR.

Regarding the commenter's recommendations, please see
Response AG4-10.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-35
Comment # Comment Response

4.3.3, Page 4.3-21
Issue: The DPEIR describes existing conditions and includes a figure depicting vegetation and habitat types that are found within the extent of the Project Study Area. The DPEIR states that “although mostly urbanized, Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont and Cordilleras Creeks support areas of riparian habitat.” Though the DPEIR references goals and policies within the 2045 General Plan Reset that would be protective of riparian areas, those areas of riparian habitat adjacent to Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont and Cordilleras Creeks are not depicted in the map of vegetation and habitat types in the DPEIR, nor is their extent described elsewhere. Additionally, the DPEIR states that future development would be required to comply with SCMC Section 18.144.040, which requires a 25-foot
setback from the top of bank on each side of the creek to protect waterways.

Per CEQA Guidelines section 15125 (a), EIRs must include descriptions of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project, and this environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is
significant, the purpose of which is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable
picture practically possible of the Project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts.

The DPEIR does not provide sufficient information on the location, extent, or species composition of riparian areas adjacent to Cordilleras, Belmont, Brittan or Pulgas Creeks, in order to facilitate meaningful review of potential significant impacts of future development within the EIR Study Area. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-36 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
Further, in the absence of sufficient information to establish baseline physical conditions, it is unclear whether 25-foot riparian setbacks as prescribed in SCMC Section 18.144.040 would be sufficient to reduce potentially significant impacts of Project development on riparian habitat to less-thansignificant levels. Lastly, Streambank armoring (e.g., with riprap and other hardscape materials) has the potential to result in significant impacts to stream resources and is commonly needed and reasonably foreseeable where
riparian buffer distances are not sufficiently wide.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence
impact would be significant: Riparian vegetation, and
associated floodplains, provide many essential benefits to stream and aquatic species habitat (Moyle 2002, CDFW
2007). As stated in the DPEIR, “riparian habitat is a distinct plant community found along the margins of creeks and
rivers,” and “has a very high value to wildlife and generally exhibits a rich and diverse animal community.”
Development adjacent to the riparian zone can result in fragmentation of riparian habitat and decreases in native species abundance and biodiversity (Davies et al. 2001, Hansen et al. 2005, CDFW 2007). Riparian buffers help keep pollutants from entering adjacent waters, benefiting species who rely on those waters for habitat and drinking water.

Narrow riparian buffers are considerably less effective in minimizing the effects of adjacent development than wider buffers (Castelle et al. 1992, Brosofske et al. 1997, Dong et al. 1998, Kiffney et al. 2003, Moore et al. 2005).

Riparian habitats also contribute to bank stability and provide flood protection. Development, including increases in impervious surfaces and installation of stormwater
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-37
Comment # Comment Response
systems and storm drain outfalls, can modify natural
streamflow patterns by increasing the magnitude and
frequency of high flow events and storm flows (Hollis 1975, Konrad and Booth 2005). Riparian habitat and adjacent
wetlands and floodplains are critical to lessening these impacts because they store and meter floodwaters, recharge groundwater aquifers, trap sediment, filter pollution, help minimize erosion, lessen peak flow velocities, and protect against storm surges. In doing so, they protect adjacent upland, down-stream, and coastal properties from loss and damage during flooding and help maintain surface and
groundwater during summer months.

One goal of the 2045 General Plan Reset Environmental
Management Element is to “promote healthy streams and
riparian corridors.” Policy LU-1.9 of the 2045 General Plan Reset is to “retain the channels, floodplains, riparian corridors (including suitable setbacks from the top of bank) and closely associated upland areas of Cordilleras, Brittain and Pulgas Creeks and their tributaries as significant open space areas” to “function as appropriate open space areas, greenbelt and to support a riparian habitat.”
Recommendation 8: CDFW recommends the PEIR include
sufficient information to facilitate meaningful review of potentially significant impacts of Project development within riparian habitat. Specifically, CDFW recommends conducting habitat assessments to determine the location, extent, and vegetation composition of riparian areas in the EIR Study Area and include this information in detailed map depictions in the PEIR. CDFW also recommends the PEIR include
supporting technical analysis to demonstrate the proposed 25-foot riparian buffer distance is protective of stream 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-38 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
resources. In addition to establishing a minimum riparian buffer such as the proposed 25-foot distance, the following site-specific mitigation measure is recommended for
inclusion in the PEIR to protect riparian areas:

Recommended Riparian Setback Mitigation Measure: Prior
to project development in the vicinity of streams, wetlands, or other aquatic areas, an agency-approved qualified
biologist shall conduct habitat surveys to identify riparian boundaries and determine the size of site-specific buffers necessary to protect riparian areas. Consideration for
appropriate riparian buffer widths shall depend on sitespecific characteristics such as the area and type of habitat to be buffered, the presence of habitat for sensitive species and their potential habitat use, site topography, slope, slope stability, and soils present at a particular site.

AG4-17 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-andAnimals.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-39
Comment # Comment Response
AG4-18 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish
and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.

Payment of the environmental document filing fee is
required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.) The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

AG4-19 CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
DPEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Shannon Husband, Environmental
Scientist, at (707) 337-1364 or
[email protected]; or Wesley Stokes, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 339-6066 or [email protected].

The comment serves as a conclusion to the comments that proceed. Please see Responses AG4-2 through AG4-18.

AG5 San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, 2/25/2025 AG5-1 Dear Ms. Chopra,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the 2045 General Plan Reset for the City of San Carlos.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is a state mandated agency established in every county to oversee the boundaries of cities and special districts. San Mateo LAFCo has jurisdiction over the boundaries of the 20 cities, 22 independent special districts, and many of the 33 active The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses AG5-2 through AG5-5.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-40 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
county and city governed special districts serving San Mateo County.

AG5-2 The DEIR states that the scope of the study area includes land both within the existing City limits as well as lands within the LAFCo designated Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City. LAFCo support the inclusion of the City’s SOI area within the study area.

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

AG5-3 San Mateo LAFCo has the following comments on the DEIR and the 2045 General Plan Reset:
•The DEIR notes that the City is not proposing any changes to the current City general plan land use designations for lands in the SOI. The SOI is the plan for the probable physical boundaries and service areas of a local agency. The LAFCo designated SOI for the City includes the unincorporated areas of Palomar Park, Devonshire, the Hassler area. In the 2009 General Plan, the lands within the City’s SOI did not have City land use designations. The DEIR and proposed
General Plan 2045 amendments do not include any
extension of City land use designations into the SOI. LAFCo encourages the City to evaluate potential land use
designations for the parcels within the City’s SOI along with the development potential of the SOI areas as part of the EIR and General Plan Reset. In addition, if there are future annexations to the City from areas within the SOI, a General Plan amendment will be required for each annexation under both the current and proposed Plan, as there is no City land use designation.

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

AG5-4 • Senate Bill 244 (2011) requires the cities and counties identify fringe, island, and
legacy communities that are disadvantaged unincorporated communities. As part of SB 244, the land use element of a city or county must analyze the water, water supply,
The commenter's recommendation is noted. The wastewater projections evaluated in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Services Systems, of the Draft EIR consider buildout within both the city limit and the sphere of influence. While no net increase in development is anticipated within the sphere of influence 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-41
Comment # Comment Response
wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire
protection needs or deficiencies for each identified
disadvantaged unincorporated community. Under this law, Palomar Park, Devonshire, the Hassler area are considered to be fringe communities, but do not meet the definition of disadvantaged. However, as Palomar Park and portions of Devonshire rely on on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal, LAFCo encourages the City to analyze wastewater needs in these two communities as part of the General Plan Rest in a similar fashion to SB 244. Recently, the City approved a sewer connection to a parcel in the SOI to
address a failing septic system. It is likely that additional septic systems within the SOI area will fail within the lifespan of the 2045 General Plan Reset. The City should consider evaluating the City’s sewer treatment capacity and sewer infrastructure capacity for both future development and the extension of sewer infrastructure to properties within the City’s SOI as the City is the logical provider of sewer services in these areas.
during the buildout horizon of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, the commenter correctly notes that sewer
demand within the city could increase as properties in the sphere of influence are annexed to the city or for other reasons added to the City's sewer service area. Impact
discussions UTIL-4, UTIL-5, and UTIL-6 in the Draft EIR consider potential net increase of sewer service demand from net new development in the city limit in the context of total
wastewater service and treatment demand for the City of San Carlos collection system and Silicon Valley Clean Water treatment plant capacity. Specifically, impact discussion UTIL5 considers both treatment capacity within the city as well as existing and future demands from areas outside of the city limit. In addition, as sites within the sphere of influence are annexed to the City's service area, they would become subject to policies in the proposed General Plan, such as Policy EM5.9, which states: "Sewer service may be extended outside the city limit only as required to protect public health due to failing septic systems in accordance with the following policies:
 Extension of sewer service would be denied if there is insufficient capacity in the wastewater collection system.  No change to the land use would occur.
 The extension of sewer service could not be used to enable further subdivision.
 The property owner would be required to annex as such time as a complete consolidation of properties could be annexed.
 The property owner would be required to complete all
improvements necessary to meet City building and
engineering standards.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-42 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
 Applicant to assure payment of all sewer connection, plan checking and inspection fees."
Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

AG5-5 • Regarding the Buildout Projects for 2024-2045, LAFCo encourages the City to also evaluate the development
projections for lands within the SOI under the current
County of San Mateo General Plan and Zoning regulations. and the potential of annexation of those lands to the City as part of the EIR and General Plan Update.

San Mateo LAFCo looks forward to reviewing all future
documents related to the General Plan reset process and the Environmental Impact Report.

The Draft EIR evaluates impacts within the entire EIR Study Area, which includes the City's sphere of influence. As shown in Table 3-1, Proposed 2045 General Plan Reset Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area, buildout projections evaluated in the Draft EIR do not assume any net change within the City's sphere of influence. While the buildout projections in the Draft EIR do not assume any net change within the sphere of influence, this does not mean that no change or redevelopment is anticipated within the sphere of influence; rather, it means that such changes or
redevelopment projects are not anticipated, in total, to result in a net increase or decrease in the overall amount of
development in the sphere of influence as a whole. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

AG6-1 Loxano Smith Attorney on behalf of Sequoia Union High School District, 3/3/2025 AG6-1 Dear Ms. Chopra:

This office represents Sequoia Union High School District (“District”). I am following up on the correspondence this office sent on October 18, 2024, on the District’s behalf, and providing additional comments and input regarding the
school facilities impacts related to the City of San Carlos to Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 2045 General Plan Reset (“General Plan”).

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses AG6-2 through AG6-7. Please note that the October 18, 2024 comment letter referenced by the commenter was received after the close of the scoping period for the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR but was nevertheless included in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, of the Draft EIR. In response to this comment letter, the City of San Carlos invited the commenter to consult regarding preparation of the Draft EIR; as of the time of publication of this Final EIR, the City has not received a response to this invitation.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-43
Comment # Comment Response
AG6-2 The District’s primary concern is to ensure that the General Plan does not create significant impacts on the student population it serves, their families, District staff and teachers, and the school facilities in which they are housed.

The District wishes to emphasize that this General
Plan has the potential to have a profound negative effect on the students of San Carlos. To that end, the District first wishes to briefly touch on some of the concerns that do not appear to have been adequately addressed in the EIR.

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

AG6-3 First, the EIR appears to maintain the position that under Government Code section 65995 and Senate Bill 50 (“SB
50”), payment of statutory developer fees constitutes full mitigation of the General Plan’s impact on the District. In our letter dated October 18, 2024, we provide a thorough explanation as to why the District disagrees with that overall position. Bottom line, statutory developer fees do not fully address the felt impact of development on the District and the community.

The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR considers the payment of school fees under Government Code Section 65995 to constitute full mitigation of the proposed project's impact on the school district. Rather, page 4.14-16 of the Draft EIR states that such fees constitute "full and complete school facilities [emphases added] mitigation." This statement is consistent with Government Code Section 65995(h), which states: "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code in the amount specified in Section 65995 and, if applicable, any amounts specified in Section 65995.5 or 65995.7 are hereby deemed to be full and complete
mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the provision of adequate school facilities
[emphasis added]." Chapter 4.14, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, evaluates potential impacts to school services consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a proposed project would have a significant impact if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-44 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools.

The impact discussion in Chapter 4.14 does not discuss the payment of school fees alone but, rather, also considers the consistency of future development projects with proposed General Plan policies, and future project-level environmental review of future school facility improvements, as well as the potential secondary effects associated with increased school enrollment. Page 4.14-17 of the Draft EIR states: "Potential secondary effects associated with increased school
enrollment, such as vehicle traffic and associated air quality and noise concerns, are addressed in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality; Chapter 4.11, Noise; and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR." Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

AG6-4 Next, the District remains concerned that the EIR does not adequately address the General Plan’s potential impact on Carlmont High School, where enrollment currently exceeds capacity, and on Sequoia High, located in neighboring
Redwood City. The EIR seems to erroneously assume that
the students generated in San Carlos could simply attend Sequoia High School. Even though Sequoia High might
currently have capacity to receive some of the students generated by development in San Carlos, that does not take into account the rapid rate of development that is currently occurring in Redwood City. The District already anticipates that Sequoia High will have difficulty serving students generated by development in Redwood City, and cannot
guarantee such service to students. Further, most students generated by development in San Carlos would most
logically feed into Carlmont High, which currently exceeds its Carlmont High School's existing capacity exceedance is noted on page 4.14-14 of the Draft EIR. Contrary to the statement of the commenter, the Draft EIR does not assume that future students will attend Sequoia High School. Rather, as stated on page 4.14-16 of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR acknowledges that "increased student enrollment associated with the buildout projections for the proposed project could exacerbate and increase the need for facility expansions." As described in Response AG6-3, Government Code Section 65995 states that school impact fees are considered full mitigation for potential impacts to school facilities, and the Draft EIR considers the secondary effects such as those noted by the commenter. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-45
Comment # Comment Response
capacity. There would be other potential impacts to consider here, such as facilities and budgetary impacts, as well as indirect impacts, such as increased traffic, noise, pollution, safe paths to school, etc.

AG6-5 Third, the EIR assumes that increased demand on school facilities will “occur incrementally.”
However, the basis for that assumption is unclear based on the recent rapid growth in San Carlos. Also, whether
increased demand occurs incrementally or not, the District still has the need to plan for it in advance of when those increased demands come.

The comment refers to "recent rapid growth" in San Carlos.

Recent residential and population development trends are described in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.13-1, Total Population, 2014 to 2024, of the Draft EIR, the population of San Carlos increased by 1,182 persons, or 4 percent, in this 10-year time period. As shown in Table 4.13-2, Housing Units, 2014 to 2024, of the Draft EIR, the housing stock of San Carlos increased by 1,270 housing units, or 10 percent, in this 10-year time period. As described in Response AG6-4, the Draft EIR acknowledges that future growth under the buildout horizon of the proposed project would exacerbate the need for school facilities expansions. However, as noted on page 4.14-17 of the Draft EIR, "The estimated timing or location of future additional facility improvements are not known at this time, so projectspecific environmental impacts that could occur from their construction and operation cannot be determined at this time.

It would be speculative to assess the physical effects of those future construction projects and the project’s potential contribution to those effects. Pursuant to Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, no further evaluation is required." Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

AG6-6 In addition to these and other concerns of the District related to the EIR, the District wishes to put forth some actionable items for the City’s consideration:

1. Meet and Confer Requirements. The District requests a As stated on page 4.14-16 of the Draft EIR, the City's proposed General Plan includes the following policies:
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-46 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
firm commitment from the City that when it considers
approval of specific developments, the City will meet and confer in good faith with the District to consider whether the project raises school-related impacts (including indirect impacts such as traffic, pollution, noise, etc.) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This could be incorporated into the EIR, or take form in a separate
agreement with the City.

The City will require developers to meet and confer with the impacted school districts prior to approval of their specific development proposals within the General Plan
regarding impacts of their development on school-related issues, and further CEQA analysis shall be undertaken as needed to address these impacts, including indirect schoolrelated impacts.

The purpose of this language is to make abundantly clear that these issues must be considered as specific projects come up, since they have not been fully considered and
addressed at the General Plan stage.
 Policy ESPS-13.4: Work with all special districts, including the school districts, to ensure that development within the city is coordinated with provision of services.
 Policy ESPS-14.5: Participate in the long-range planning activities with San Carlos Unified School District and
Sequoia Union High School District.

Future specific development projects within the city will be subject to project-level CEQA review as applicable, which would require evaluation of potential impacts to school services, including potential secondary impacts. The District will have the ability to comment on future CEQA documents and project applications.

AG6-7 2. School-Related Community Benefits. The District understands that the City negotiates
certain community benefits through baseline requirements for developers or as part of
community benefit negotiations in development
agreements. See: City of San Carlos
Website, Community Amenities, available at:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and _divisions/community_develo
pment/planning/community_benefits.php. The District
would like to work with the City
to create a project category of items that benefit District The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-47
Comment # Comment Response
schools and students. Although
the District has not yet consulted with its feeder district San Carlos School District on this
topic, in theory this category could include projects that benefit both school districts.

Examples of school-related community benefit projects
could potentially include:
•Workforce Housing: The District would like to explore with the City some of the ways that community benefit projects could serve District employee housing needs. The District has interest in a variety of workforce housing
projects that would assist the District in retaining qualified employees to serve District students.

One example could involve a dedication by developers of a certain number or percentage of units within their project that are deed-restricted; the restriction could require that, before sale is opened to other potential buyers, there is a mandatory period in which the unit is first offered at fair market value to District employees for use as their primary residence. Such a restriction would help District employees in a competitive market, who might otherwise have
difficulty competing against higher bidders and all-cash offers. Providing a path for District employees to local homeownership has a clear benefit of helping the District retain qualified employees with strong ties within the
community.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-48 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
to attract and retain employees who cannot otherwise
afford to live in the community where they work due to the high cost of living.
•Safe walking paths and safety features: Another idea to be explored would be sidewalk improvement projects, signage and crossing lights, bike lanes, and other transportationrelated improvements designed to facilitate safe transportation corridors to and from school, with an
emphasis on safe walking and biking paths.
•Other District-focused amenities: The District would like to explore other amenities that support District schools and students.

We would be happy to schedule a meeting between the City of San Carlos, developers, and their respective consultants to speak about these issues, and discuss a path forward that addresses the District’s needs and concerns. Let us know if that would be helpful.

Public Hearing Comments
PH1-1 Vice Chair Garvey
I looked at a letter from LAFCO the local agency formation commission, and they suggested that this EIR evaluate the sewer treatment capacity of future development and when I looked at the EIR I think I read that the EIR contemplates that the sewer infrastructure is fully built out. Then I was remembering some of the study sessions we had for the
Northeast Plan and it didn't seem to me that all of the infrastructure for that part of the city had been fully built out. My comment is if that part of the EIR could talk about that a little bit more, if we need to build out infrastructure for parts of the city that are not fully developed, then the EIR should contemplate that in some way.

This comment is noted. Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Services, of the Draft EIR relies in part on existing plans already in place that project future service expansion in the EIR Study Area.

This Draft EIR is also a program-level document, and does not analyze specific areas within San Carlos. The Northeast Area Specific Plan EIR would analyze the buildout of the sewer infrastructure within the Northeast Area in more depth. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-49
Comment # Comment Response
PH1-2 Vice Chair Garvey
VMT impacts under CEQA would need mitigation but I was
reading in the findings from Kittleson that when you look at the 2045 projected VMT as compared to the 2024 Baseline for the City there's a citywide decrease in VMT. This suggests that the buildout and land uses are performing better than existing land uses by shortening the trip length. My
comment is we as a city seem to be on a good path and
while we will still need to have traffic mitigation measures it was encouraging for me to see these findings that that we on a good trend line.

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

PH1-3 Vice Chair Garvey
I was reading the comment letter from Redwood City and
they're designing a transportation management association and offered collaboration with us as a City on transportation related issues. This seemed a good idea for me for a couple of reasons and I think the EIR touches on this. Redwood City is of course a much larger city and they're our next door neighbor and I recall us as a commission talking about
possibly forming a transportation management association as we get larger and bigger developments happen in the
city. So this seemed like a good idea to me and to highlight that a little bit more in the EIR as a possibility for the future.

Forming a transportation management association is one of the recommended measures in the ongoing Citywide
Transportation Demand Management and Parking Reform
project. As the project gets finalized, this measure will be expanded upon more.

PH1-4 Commissioner Anand
Thank you for the report its very encouraging to see that we are planning for the future as always. The one thing that I would like to see advancement in is science and technology in terms of climate change mitigation. We are looking at a lot of self-driving vehicles and electric vehicles and how they will factor in now that we have Waymo, so these are selfdriving taxis,maybe they will reduce the number of parking spaces required, like there's a lot of tech advancement The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-50 APRIL 202 5
Comment # Comment Response
which I did not see as an assumption in the plan laid out in detail. So if we could have something to that effect or think about it as we think for our future I think we will have a more contemporary plan in our hands but thank you all for the work.

PH1-5 Commissioner Castaneda
In reading through the Draft EIR I thought that there are really some excellent mitigation ideas and methods and
materials that that are in the plan so I'm encouraged about all the work that we've done. I'm also assuming that we have addressed all of the issues that we needed to address in the letters that we received from the people that we have contacted, which also makes me quite pleased because they had some very good suggestions and I also share what
commissioner Clements said about the idea of collaborating with Redwood City, I also agree that would be an excellent idea so thank you.

The comment is noted. Comments from the Notice of
Preparation have been compiled and can be viewed in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PH1-6 Commissioner Bundy
I really appreciated reading this document. I thought it was really well organized and very accessible so thank you staff and Consulting team for putting that effort in. I wanted to make one comment about the greenhouse gas mitigation,
our general plan currently lacks any actions that are focused on building sector embodied carbon, so the concrete and steel the carbon that comes with those products. I would like to see an action evaluate policy approaches to targeting embodied carbon or you know including that in the CMAP
mitigation measure just so we're really explicit that this is something that's on the table. I think given the scale of construction that we need in the Bay Area to meet our
Regional Housing deficit that there's potential for regional approaches to lower cost or lower carbon concrete and so I As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Action EM-7.3 within the General Plan has been revised to include considerations for the use of low-carbon and
sustainable materials to reduce embodied carbon in
construction and to meet GHG reduction target(s).
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-51
Comment # Comment Response
just wanted to encourage that consideration.

PH1-7 Commissioner Bundy
Flooding item: if the text could be updated to reflect the Senate Bill 272 sea level rise adaptation planning
requirements and BCDC’s December adoption of the
Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and possibly including an action associated with participating in a multi-jurisdictional RSAP. I would like to see that as well.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, mention of the Senate Bill 272 and BCDC’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan have been added to Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR.

PH1-8 Chair Clements
I really like what commissioner Bundy just said and I'm not sure if the EIR is the place to note that or if it's within the CMAP but wherever the appropriate places to note lower
carbon growth if we can. All of the regional efforts that will be going on around climate change and adaptation would be important. This was very interesting to me thank you for the presentation and all the help understanding what goes into what is a fairly prescribed process of how you do an EIR for a program like this and an update for the general plan. It's very interesting to learn all the details that go into it and the assumptions so thank you for the high quality report.

Additional, more detailed climate change and adaption
planning will be conducted as part of the CMAP update
following the 2045 General Plan Reset.

PH1-9 Chair Clements
I want to make sure that we think through the jobs housing balance. I know housing and population was one of the
areas not deemed to have a significant impact but as we adopt new capacity numbers I want to make sure that we
think through if anything needs to be adjusted to make sure that we ourselves are growing in a sustainable manner. Even if some of the jurisdictions in the area are not either growing in that ratio or perhaps intending to grow in that way, I'm happy to see that we are and I just want to be mindful that the numbers reflect that work.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-52 APRIL 202 5
This page intentionally left blank.

2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
www.PlaceWorks.com
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE ........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX E :

R EVISED P ROPOSED G ENERAL

P LAN A MENDMENTS
........................................................................................................................

Page Intentionally Left Blank
1 Appendix E: Revised Proposed General Plan Amendments
This document presents proposed amendments to the San Carlos 2030 General Plan.

Underlined text represents language that has been added to the General Plan; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the General Plan. Text that is highlighted is text that has been revised following publication of the Draft EIR. This document focuses on non-formatting changes to the policies and actions of the General Plan and does not include changes to the General Plan format, background information, or narrative language.

Front Matter
Land Acknowledgement: The City of San Carlos acknowledges that our lands are located on the ancestral homeland of the Ohlone peoples, and that, as the original stewards of this land, the Ohlone understood the interconnectedness of all things and maintained harmony with nature for millennia.

Chapter 3 – Land Use Element
• Action LU-1.1: Continue to evaluate the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance to encourage mode shift Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance that contains strategies to enhance travel patterns and to reduce vehicular trip generation from new development by 20 percent.
• 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 utilizing the Planned Community PC zone 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.
• Policy LU-4.6 Parcels proposed for annexation to the City shall be prezoned. a. Undeveloped Residential Parcels. Parcels with development potential of five or more lots shall be zoned to Planned Community (with minimum R-1-LD Development Standards) 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. Other parcels proposed for annexation shall be prezoned R-1-LD Low- Density, Single-Family Residential District. Developed residential parcels and parcels with development potential for -
Appendix E: Revised Proposed General Plan Amendments
2 nonresidential use shall be prezoned consistent with surrounding and/or like zoning district classifications which represent uses intended for the property. • Policy LU-5.16: Identify, develop and implement Redevelopment Agency sponsored programs and other public/private partnership developments to help facilitate economic development. • Action LU-6.5: Continue to implement the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan adopted on October 25, 2021 (Resolution 2021-107).
• Policy LU-5.17: Encourage the development as well as improvements to the ingress and egress on the following public parking lots plazas: South Plaza, Williams Plaza, Wheeler Plaza and Clark Plaza.

Encourage the consolidation and acquisition of parcels when opportunities become available to expand the public parking lots plazas, provide improved ingress and egress and improve the efficiency of design.
• Action LU-7.1: Continue to implement the City's adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan adopted on June 9th, 2020 and update the Master Plan as needed. Prepare a community study to seek new ways to enhance walkability and connect all areas of the community. The current Bicycle Transportation Plan could be expanded to be a Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. • Policy LU-8.19: Residential structures shall be de- signed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, avoid obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, avoid interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the Objective Design Standards community design principles.
• Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties. • 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, and tribal cultural resources.
• Action LU-12.6: The City of San Carlos shall develop mapping to indicate areas in the City with archaeological sensitivity and guidance documentation for public and private construction projects that involve ground disturbance activities in areas with archaeological sensitivity. The requirements may include 1) an archeological records search, 2) construction training for cultural sensitivity, and 3) procedures if archaeologic resources are discovered.

Chapter 5 – Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
• Policy CSH-3.1: Strive to reduce baseline and development-related traffic by implementing and enforcing the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20 percent through public-private partnership efforts.
• Policy CSH-3.3: Support the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management measures in new development to reduce traffic impacts.

Appendix E: Revised Proposed General Plan Amendments
3 • Policy CSH-3.7: Public sidewalks and walkways shall be designed to accommodate access in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and including any other applicable State and federal laws, regulations and guidelines, and shall be kept clear of obstruction. • Policy CSH-3.8 The City shall strive to maintain intersection continue to evaluate service levels above the mid- range of level D (notto exceed a Volume- to-Capacity Ratio (V/C) of .85 or a total average delay time at intersections of 45 seconds whenever V/C Ratio is not available) metrics as provided by the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (or Transportation Study) Guidelines as adopted November 12, 2024, Resolution 2024-118. The City recognizes that certain development project(s) may cause this level of service goal these thresholds to be exceeded. The City may approve such development project(s) if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the adverse effects of exceeding the mid-range level D goal thresholds as set forth in the Transportation Study Guidelines.
• Action CSH-3.2: The City shall consider adoption of a Transportation Impact Fee for new development to support city-wide Transportation Demand Management measures. • Policy CSH-4.2: Reduce potential conflicts, safety hazards and physical obstacles between bicyclists, automobiles and pedestrians and ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and including any other applicable State and federal laws, regulations and guidelines.

Chapter 6 – Environmental Management
• Policy EM-1.1: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development project applications through the preparation of a biological resources assessment by a qualified biologist. Require such biological resource assessments as part of project approval for proposed development on sites that may support special-status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities, important wildlife corridors, riparian habitat, or regulated wetlands and waters.
• Action EM-1.5: Require that major new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.
• Action EM-7.3: Update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years, including but not limited to:
a. A revised greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory;
b. An overview of new knowledge of the causes and anticipated impacts of climate change; c. Collaborate with stakeholders and volunteers to assist in the preparation and implementation of the effective CAP.
d. An assessment of the appropriateness and adequacy of San Carlos’ GHG reduction target; e. A summary of the quantified cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced per emission reduction measure;
f. An evaluation of the effectiveness of existing programs; and Appendix E: Revised Proposed General Plan Amendments
4 g. Considerations for the use of low-carbon and sustainable materials to reduce embodied carbon in construction and to meet GHG reduction target(s); and
hg. Modifications to goals, policies and strategies as needed to achieve the GHG reduction target.

Chapter 7 – Parks and Recreation
• Policy PR-2.3: Continue to support implementation of trail connections as identified in the City’s Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreation Facilities Potential Trail Connections Plan.
• Policy PR-3.7: Protect the Youth Center as a valuable venue exclusively for giving priority to youth activities and programs as subject to the terms in the Youth Center Use Policy adopted by City Council.

Chapter 9 – Noise
• Policy NOI-1.8: During all phases of construction activity, reasonable noise reduction measures shall be utilized to minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels. a. Construction All construction activities shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Development projects that require an acoustical study shall incorporate reasonable noise and vibration reduction measures and best management practices to minimize excessive noise levels during all phases of construction activity. Reduction measures and best management practices may include, but are not limited to, noise control techniques for construction tools and equipment, construction site management techniques, temporary noise barriers, noise monitoring and reporting, and/or construction traffic management.
• Policy NOI-1.12: Ensure consistency with the noise compatibility policies and criteria contained in the San Carlos Airport Land Use Plan Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport.
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX F :

C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ON TH E

D RAFT EIR
........................................................................................................................

Page Intentionally Left Blank
From: Zachariasen, Judith@DOC
To: [email protected]
Cc: OLRA@DOC; OPR State Clearinghouse
Subject: 2045 General Plan Reset - SCH no. 2024060037
Date: Friday, January 31, 2025 2:49:09 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Akanksha Chopra,
The California Geological Survey (CGS) has received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset. This email conveys recommendations from CGS concerning geologic issues related to the project area as addressed in the DEIR.

1. Liquefaction Hazards
The project area is located within an earthquake zone of required investigation (ZORI) for liquefaction mapped by CGS in accordance with the 1990 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The DEIR and supporting documents, in addressing this hazard, should mention the ZORI, include a map showing their extent in the project area, and explicitly address the regulatory implications of the zone for future development.

2.Lateral Spreading Hazards
The DEIR states “No known fault traces are located within the EIR Study Area and would not result in lateral spreading as a result of fault rupture.” CGS notes that lateral spreading is a secondary effect of earthquake shaking associated with liquefaction and is not, in general, directly related to surface fault rupture. Thus, the absence of mapped fault traces does not imply the absence of a lateral spreading hazard, especially in an area with a significant liquefaction hazard. Lateral spreading should be addressed independently of fault rupture.

If you have any additional comments or questions, please feel free to call or email.

Thank you,
Judy Zachariasen
Judith Zachariasen, PhD, PG, CEG
Senior Engineering Geologist
Fault Zoning Unit Supervisor
Seismic Hazards Program
California Geological Survey
California Department of Conservation
715 P Street, MS 1900, Sacramento, CA 95814
T: (916) 879-2844
AG1-2
AG1-1
AG1-3
E: [email protected]
From: Madeline Miller
To: Madeline Miller
Subject: FW: Comment on the Feb. 3, 2025 Meeting Agenda Item 6.a. - General Plan Reset Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 1:50:05 PM
Attachments: Pulgas Creek Pump Station across from a new development on Industrial Road during a high tide.png Laurel Street.png
Outlook-OneShoreli.png
From: Len Materman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 2:22 PM
To: Kristen Clements <[email protected]>; Twisha Anand <[email protected]>; Summer Bundy <[email protected]>; Janet Castaneda <[email protected]>; Ellen Garvey <[email protected]> Cc: Andrea Mardesich <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on the Feb. 3, 2025 Meeting Agenda Item 6.a. - General Plan Reset Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners: I had hoped to make a public comment in person this evening but unfortunately, I'm unable to attend so please consider the following as you discuss this topic, which is very important to the future Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners:

I had hoped to make a public comment in person this evening but unfortunately, I'm unable to attend so please consider the following as you discuss this topic, which is very important to the future of this City.

In addition to being a long-time resident of San Carlos, I run the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, also known as OneShoreline, which was established by State legislation five years ago as the first independent government agency in California focused on planning for and building regional resilience to the impacts of climate change. We have several efforts that benefit San Carlos, from funding restoration and stormwater detention projects along Belmont Creek upstream of where it forms the San Carlos boundary, to removing debris along that Creek and along Cordilleras Creek in the areas that flood our City, to shoreline adaptation projects with San Carlos and its neighboring cities.

Today, I write about another major OneShoreline effort: to provide uniform guidance and template language for general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and development agreements so that private developments and public infrastructure can function for their intended lifespan and contribute to community resilience without having to undergo costly retrofits in the future.

Related to private developments, of which there are several proposed in San Carlos, in June 2023 the OneShoreline Board adopted Policy Planning Guidance to Protect and Enhance Bay Shoreline Areas of San Mateo County (available at OneShoreline.org/planningguidance). The picture below taken six weeks ago in an area affected by tides today provides an example for why requirements for long-term resilience, such as setbacks from, and no underground parking / key infrastructure immediately adjacent to, creeks and shorelines should be part of our zoning and enforced.
. • • I €) ~- ~~~c
- I •
OneShoreline is now working on a similar effort related to the public infrastructure that makes our communities livable (stormwater and wastewater systems, roads, parks, marinas, and utilities).

Here is an image of Laurel Street in San Carlos, which is not generally thought of as a floodway.

AG2-1
AG2-2
AG2-3 T
We applaud the City of San Carlos for its work thus far to incorporate climate resilience language into its key documents. Today, in the document before you, I encourage you to ensure that this is done at every opportunity and is unambiguous.

Please ask yourselves: am I confident that the proposed text regarding commercial and housing developments, transportation, or parks will lead to specific City requirements — soon — to ensure that a new asset being proposed will function for its lifespan during increasingly large storms and higher tides and groundwater? If the answer is no, please add language to the General Plan document that will give you that confidence.

Thank you for your consideration,
Len Materman
Chief Executive Officer
San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District OneShoreline.org
AG2-4
AG2-3
cont.
-'~f• OneShoreline ,---... ·~-
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
February 19, 2025 SCH #: 2024060037
GTS #: 33077
GTS ID: 04-SM-2024-00653
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/VAR/VAR
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Re: 2045 General Plan Reset ─ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Akanksha Chopra:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 2045 General Plan Reset. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the January 2025 DEIR.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project is an update to the City of San Carlos’s 2030 General Plan to amend the buildout capacity. Citywide development projections for growth through 2045 include estimates of up to 8,300 new housing units, 15,620 new residents, 8,927,300 new nonresidential square footage, and 26,530 new employees. Sections of U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101) and State Route (SR) 82 are within the San Carlos City limits and are likely to be impacted by future developments under the General Plan.

Travel Demand Analysis
The project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted Transportation Significance Criteria. Under these criteria any development that produces 15 percent less than the regional average VMT per service population, per capita, and per employee is considered less than significant.

AG3-2
AG3-1

CALIFORN IA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• •
lizltrans•
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
February 19, 2025

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Per the DEIR, the proposed project VMT impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Caltrans acknowledges that the DEIR has identified Mitigation Measure TRAN-2 to help mitigate potential VMT impacts from future developments by amending the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to increase the required trip reduction to the extent feasible. The City is encouraged to review the 2023 Caltrans Transportation Demand Management Toolbox (link), which may contain additional TDM requirements and incentives not already discussed in the City’s TDM program and General Plan.

Please additionally note that the City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) recently published its Final Report for the VMT/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Model Mitigation Program (link). The VMT/GHG Model Mitigation Program was awarded through Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program and intends to assist project sponsors and developers in identifying feasible options for mitigating VMT and GHG emission impacts of land use and VMT-inducing transportation projects in the County. The City is encouraged to collaborate with Caltrans and C/CAG to explore more citywide or regional VMT mitigation options where feasible.

Mitigation Strategies
Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework Guide defines a place type based on four physical elements: built form, land use, mobility options, and people. Based on the Smart Mobility Framework 2022, the proposed project area is identified as an urban community that typically consists of moderately dense urban design, that are mostly residential but with mixed-use centers. Housing is varied in density and type. Transit is available to connect neighborhoods to multiple destinations. Street networks are finegrained with good connectivity for pedestrians and limited connectivity for bicyclists.

Please also consider the measures listed below, which are quantified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies in reducing regional VMT:
• Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
• Locate Developments in Area with High Destination Accessibility • Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas • Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
• Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
• Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards
• Provide Secure Bike Parking, especially near transit
• Create Urban Non-motorized zones
• Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
• Implement Shared Vehicle Program (car/bike/E-bike/scooter) • Limit Residential Parking Supply
AG3-2
Cont.

AG3-3
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
February 19, 2025

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” • Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Fair Share Contributions
We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT.

Caltrans recommends the City encourage fair share contributions from future development projects to the following Plan Bay Area 2050 projects:

RTP ID Title Scope Open
Period
Funding*
(millions)
21-T06-027
Corridor &
Interchange
Improvements
| US-101 |
San Mateo
County
This program includes funding to
implement interchange improvements
at SR-92, 3rd Ave, Holly St, Peninsula
Ave, Produce Ave, Sierra Point Pkwy,
University Ave, Willow Rd, and
Woodside Rd; and funding for a
planning study to scope interchange
improvements at Candlestick.
2021 –
2035 $901
21-T10-078
BRT |
Modernization
| SamTrans |
El Camino
Real
This program includes funding to
implement BRT improvements to
existing bus service along El Camino
Real from Daly City BART to Palo Alto
Caltrain Station. Improvements include
frequency upgrades (15-minute peak
headways), dedicated lanes (45% of
route), transit priority infrastructure and
transit signal priority.
2036 -
2050 $352
21-T12-119
Express Bus |
Service
Expansion |
SamTrans
This program includes funding to
implement new express bus service
along US-101 and I-280 (on express
lanes where available) from Foster City,
San Mateo and Burlingame to
Downtown San Francisco; from San
Mateo and Palo Alto to Western San
Francisco; and from San Bruno to
2021 -
2035 $478
AG3-4
AG3-5
AG3-3
cont.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
February 19, 2025

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Sunnyvale. Improvements include parkand-ride facilities, ramp improvements and bus stop improvements (20-minute
peak headways).

Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing conditions for walking and biking along and across the STN in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of location-based and prioritized needs.

Please note that any Complete Streets reference should be updated to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (link) that highlights the importance of addressing the needs of non-motorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.

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

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

AG3-6
AG3-7
AG3-8
AG3-9
I I
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
February 19, 2025

Page 5 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” and completeness of the application. Please use the following resources to determine the appropriate review process:
- TR-0416 Applicant’s Checklist (link)
- Flowchart, Figure 1.2 in Chapter 100 – The Permit Function, Caltrans Encroachment Permit Manual (link)
The permit approval may take 30 days to 6 months or more depending on the project scope, size, complexity, completeness, compliance with policies and quality of the permit package submitted. Projects requiring exceptions to design standards or external agency approvals may need more time to process.

To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). When the applicant is ready to pursue a Caltrans encroachment permit, please contact [email protected] to initiate the process.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Luana Chen, Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact LDR[email protected].

Sincerely,
Llisel Ayon
Acting Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
AG3-9
cont.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
February 25, 2025
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
[email protected]
Subject: 2045 General Plan Reset, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2024060037, City of San Carlos, San Mateo County Dear Akanksha Chopra:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) from the City of San Carlos (City) for the 2045 General Plan Reset (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. CDFW previously submitted comments in response to the Notice of Preparation of the DPEIR.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-1
AG4-2
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

California Endangered Species Act and Native Plant Protection Act Please be advised that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA or NPPA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Under CESA, take is defined as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation. If the Project will impact CESA or NPPA listed species, early consultation with CDFW is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain an ITP. Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish and Game Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515.)
CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a Project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001(c), 21083, and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15380, 15064, 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with Fish and Game Code, § 2080 et. seq.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for Project activities affecting lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat.

Notification is required for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank (including associated riparian or wetland resources); or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake, or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, drainage ditches, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are generally subject to notification requirements. In addition, infrastructure installed beneath such aquatic features, such as through hydraulic directional drilling, is also generally subject to notification requirements. Any impacts to the mainstems, tributaries and floodplains or associated riparian habitat would likely require an LSA Notification. CDFW, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider the DPEIR for the Project. CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as the responsible agency.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-2
cont.

AG4-3
AG4-4
l
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

Raptors and Other Nesting Birds
CDFW has authority over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include §§ 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird). Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

Fully Protected Species
Fully protected species, such as San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataennia), California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus, formerly California clapper rail) or California Black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
• Take is for necessary scientific research;
• Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock; or • They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an ITP for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (Fish & G. Code §2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of San Carlos
Objective: The objective of the Project is to plan for the growth of San Carlos over a 20-year time horizon and to: allow for a mix of development to support the City’s economic resiliency and to sustain a robust local economy; preserve, protect, and promote industrial, commercial, and office uses to maintain a thriving ecosystem of local businesses and to provide for local jobs; provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of a diverse community, as outlines in the 2023-2031 Housing Element and for future Housing Element cycles; and make minor updates to the 2030 General Plan to reference recent City initiatives, plans, or new State regulations.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-5
AG4-6
AG4-7
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

Location: City of San Carlos, San Mateo County, CA 94070.

Timeframe: 2025-2045

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

I. Project Description and Related Impact Shortcoming
COMMENT 1: Program EIR Subsequent Project Review
The Project EIR has been prepared as a draft Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 but the Program EIR does not include a checklist for subsequent project review. While Program EIRs have a necessarily broad scope, CDFW recommends providing as much information related to anticipated future activities as possible. CDFW recognizes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15152, subdivision (c), if a Lead Agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR or large-scale planning approval, the development of detailed, sitespecific information may not be feasible and can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the Lead Agency prepares a future environmental document. This future environmental document would cover a project of a more limited geographical scale and is appropriate if the deferred information does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. The CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(4) states, “Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.” Based on CEQA Guidelines section 15183.3 and associated Appendix N Checklist, and consistent with other program EIRs, CDFW recommends creating a procedure or checklist for evaluating subsequent Project impacts on biological resources to determine if they are within the scope of the Program EIR or if an additional environmental document is warranted. This checklist should be included as an attachment to the EIR. Future analysis should include all special-status species and sensitive habitat including but not limited to species considered rare, threatened, or endangered species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15380.

When used appropriately, the checklist should be accompanied by enough relevant information and reasonable inferences to support a “within the scope” of the EIR conclusion. For subsequent Project activities that may affect sensitive biological Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-7
cont.

AG4-8
AG4-9
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

resources, a site-specific analysis should be prepared by a Qualified Biologist to provide the necessary supporting information. In addition, the checklist should cite the specific portions of the EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the subsequent Project activities’ significant effects and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the EIR.

II. Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Related Impact Shortcomings MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the Project have potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species?
And,
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
COMMENT 2: Nesting Birds, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20 Issue: Nesting birds, including American Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), have the potential to nest on the ground, in trees, on structures, or in vegetation within and in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area. The DPEIR states that “development in locations abutting or in the vicinity of open space lands or water resources, where special status species are more likely to occur, could potentially cause a significant impact to, or cause the inadvertent loss, of bird nests in active use.” Though not mentioned in the DIER, the City of San Carlos General Plan Environmental Management Element contains an action item (Action EM-1.5) requiring “major new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.” However, the DPEIR lacks specific avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to protect nesting birds sufficient to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Specific impact, why the impact would occur, and evidence the impact would be significant: The federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code protect migratory and nesting birds, including species with potential to occur in the Project area (e.g., American falcon and Alameda song sparrow). The nesting seasons for passerines, owls, and raptors range from February 15- August 30, January 15- September 15, and February 15- September 15, respectively.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-9
cont.

AG4-10
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

Recommendation 2: CDFW recommends the PEIR include avoidance and minimization measures to protect nesting birds by incorporating the mitigation measure below to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels:

Recommended Nesting Bird Mitigation Measure: If Project grading or construction is scheduled to take place between January 15 – September 15, a preconstruction survey of the Project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region. The survey shall determine if active nests are present within the planned area of disturbance or within 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for accipiters and 1,000 feet for buteos. The survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities, and a second focused survey shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional preconstruction survey shall be conducted such that no more than two weeks will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities.

If a lapse of Project-related activities of seven days or longer occurs, another focused survey will be conducted before Project activities can be reinitiated.

If an active bird nest is found within the survey radii, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. A protective buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist based on the site conditions such as whether the nest is in a line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting. Typical protective buffers are as follows: 1) 250 feet for passerines, 2) 500 feet for accipiters, and 3) 1,000 feet for buteos. No Project personnel or equipment shall be allowed to enter the protective buffer until the qualified biologist determines that the young have fully fledged and will no longer be adversely affected by the Project.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings.

COMMENT 3: Bats, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20
Issue: The DPEIR states that special-status bats such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) have the potential to occur within the EIR Study Area and that there exists potential for species loss or disruption “due to conversion of areas of natural habitat, removal of trees and other vegetation, increases in light and noise, and other modifications and disturbance,” a potentially significant impact under CEQA. The DPEIR does not include measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potentially significant impacts to roosting bats.

Specific impact, why the impact would occur, and evidence the impact would be significant: Bats play an important role in Bay Area ecosystems, through pest control, pollination and seed dispersal. Recent studies estimate that bat consumption of insect pests results in more than $3 billion in agricultural production savings per year in the U.S. (USFWS 2025). Bats are known to roost under bridges, in caves and mines, on buildings, in cliff crevices, in tree foliage, bark, and hollows, and in riprap, with habitat use varying temporally and seasonally. Suitability of bat roosting habitat is dependent on temperature, protection from predators and inclement weather, and proximity to foraging sites. Habitat reduction and disruption of hibernation and maternity roosts due to human development and activity have contributed to steep population declines in California and across the globe. Many bat species are long lived, with most females birthing only one to two young per year.

Due to low reproductive rates and sensitivity of breeding females to disruption, maternity colonies affected by human activities that temporarily reduce fecundity or mortality may require multiple years to recover following disturbance events (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019).

Recommendation 3: CDFW recommends including avoidance and minimization measures to protect bats that have the potential to occur within the PEIR Study Area, and recommends incorporating the following mitigation measure:

Recommended Bat Mitigation Measure: At any Project site where trees or abandoned buildings would be removed or heavily modified, prior to Project activities that would remove trees or modify buildings, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats. The habitat assessment shall be conducted a minimum of 30 to 90 days prior to the beginning of Project activities.

For tree removal, the habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliating bark for colonial species, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species). If suitable Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-10
cont.

AG4-11
l
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 8 ends

habitat is found, it shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked. Trees shall be removed only if:
a) Presence of bats is presumed or documented during surveys in trees with suitable habitat, and removal using the two-step removal process detailed below occurs only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through April 15, and September 1 through October 15, or;
b) After a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats.

Two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two consecutive days. On the first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided. On the second day the remainder of the tree shall be removed.

For modification of buildings, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting bats. If roosting bats are detected, a bat avoidance and exclusion plan shall be implemented. The plan shall recognize that both maternity and winter roosting seasons are vulnerable times for bats and require exclusion outside of these times, generally between March 1 and April 15, or September 1 and October 15 when temperatures are sufficiently warm. Work operations shall cease if bats are found roosting within the Project area, and CDFW shall be consulted.

For loss of suitable bat habitat trees or impacts to buildings or structures occupied by bats subject to bat avoidance measures, the Project shall provide habitat mitigation in the form of:
1) Native tree planting at an appropriate ratio to offset canopy and temporal habitat loss and tree planting maintenance for a minimum of five years and until success criteria are met, or;
2) Establishing suitable bat habitat structures.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-11
cont.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 9 ends

COMMENT 4: San Francisco Garter Snake, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20 Issue: San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) has the potential to occur within the Project Study Area, but the DPEIR does not adequately discuss or evaluate to what extent Project development could cause direct and/or indirect impacts to SFGS individuals or habitat. Additional impact assessment information is needed for CDFW to confirm Project protective measures will avoid direct and/or indirect impacts to SFGS and their habitat Delineations of SFGS habitat components by a qualified expert are necessary to determine areas where these species may occur within the Project area.

Construction and maintenance activities in suitable habitat could result in direct and indirect take to SFGS. Project development could injure or kill SFGS if they occur on-site, potentially resulting in a substantial reduction of their populations. Indirect take may occur due to upland habitat loss and degraded site suitability for SFGS to complete all stages of their life cycle.

SFGS are endemic snakes with a highly limited range in the San Francisco Peninsula. They utilize a variety of habitats including upland sites for basking, rodent burrows for shelter and low-lying marsh for feeding and reproduction (USFWS 1985). In coastal areas, SFGS may hibernate during the winter in small mammal burrows (USFWS, 2007). SFGS are threatened by loss of habitat from agricultural, commercial, and urban development, illegal collection by reptile breeders, and decline of their prey species, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii).

SFGS are CESA listed as endangered species and therefore are a threatened or endangered species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if SFGS are injured or killed, or their habitat is removed as a result of Project development, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number or restriction in the range of a threatened species or endangered species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Page 10 ends

land necessary to protect these areas. Establishing appropriately sized construction buffers and protected areas that consider both short- and long-range SFGS dispersal is essential to protect SFGS individuals, populations, and habitat.

Specifically, the PEIR should describe the extent of temporary and permanent impacts that would occur to SFGS breeding and/or upland habitat. Additionally, CDFW recommends the PEIR incorporate the following mitigation measure:

Recommended San Francisco Garter Snake Mitigation Measure: The Project and all tiered projects shall be designed to avoid impacts to SFGS individuals and habitat. Protocol-level surveys for SFGS individuals and habitat shall be performed by an agency-approved qualified biologist prior to construction in or adjacent to potentially suitable SFGS aquatic and/or upland habitat, including wetlands, riparian areas, grasslands near ponds/wetlands, or other sensitive habitat, following survey protocols approved by USFWS and CDFW. An agency-approved qualified biologist, in consultation with USFWS and CDFW, shall determine appropriate, site-specific buffers to protect SFGS breeding and upland habitat prior to conducting grading or other construction activities.

COMMENT 5: Crotch’s Bumble Bee, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20 Issue: The DPEIR does not identify potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii, CBB). The current range of CBB encompasses the proposed EIR Study Area, and proposed Project activities could impact bumble bees if they are present on-site. The DPEIR does not include avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures to protect potential CBB that may occur within the Project area.

Specific impacts, why they may occur and be potentially significant: CBB is a candidate species under CESA and therefore should be considered a threatened, endangered, or rare species under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Many bumble bee species, including CBB, once common in the western United States, have undergone a dramatic decline in both distribution and abundance and are now extirpated from much of their historic ranges. Many bumble bees are threatened with extinction due primarily to reductions in habitat from urbanization, intensive agriculture, and invasive species introductions.

Bumble bees, including CBB, are found in a wide variety of natural, agricultural, urban and rural habitats, and require suitable nesting and overwintering sites as well as availability of nectar and pollen from floral resources (Hatfield et al. 2018).

Potential nest habitat utilized from late February to late October includes underground abandoned small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses and/or thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, or hollow logs.

Overwintering sites are utilized from November through early February by mated queens in self-excavated hibernacula, and could be present in soft, disturbed soil, Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-12
cont.

AG4-13
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 11 ends

sand, well-drained or loose soils, under leaf litter or other debris with ground cover requisites such as barren areas, tree litter, and bare patches within short grass in areas lacking dense vegetation. Any near-surface or subsurface ground disturbance within Project sites could result in the direct take of bumble bee colonies or overwintering queens. Bumble bees are generalist foragers, and do not depend on any one flower type, often visiting native and non-native flowering plants alike to collect the pollen and nectar resources needed to sustain their colonies and provision nest cells. Vegetation removal, including removal of any flowering plants or trees within the EIR Study Area, could impact bumble bee habitat.

If CBB are injured or killed, or their habitat is removed as a result of Project development, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number or restriction in the range of a threatened species or endangered species, a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Recommendation 5: CDFW recommends the PEIR provide an assessment of the potential for the Project to impact CBB, and to incorporate the following mitigation measure to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on CBB.

Recommended Crotch’s Bumble Bee Mitigation Measure: CBB habitat assessments shall be performed in Project sites that may provide suitable CBB habitat and that could be impacted by Project development. The habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable with the life history and ecological requirements of CBB, and include all areas of suitable overwintering, nesting, and foraging habitats within 100 feet of proposed work areas.

In areas with potential CBB habitat, pre-construction surveys for CBB individuals shall be conducted by a qualified biologist between March to August. Surveys shall include a minimum of three survey efforts, over a three-day period within a temperature range of 15C and 30C. If the qualified biologist suspects CBB detection or occupancy, CDFW shall be consulted immediately. CBB survey results shall be considered valid for one year at a given site, but additional surveys shall be performed prior to ground-disturbing activities at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. If surveys document the presence of CBB within Project sites, the City shall consult with CDFW prior to construction to determine if a CESA ITP authorization is required.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-13
cont.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 12 ends

The qualified biologist shall expand buffer zones as necessary to prevent disturbance and avoid take.

Bumble bee floral resources shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for any permanent impacts to CBB habitat. Floral resources shall be replaced as close to their original location as is feasible. If active CBB nests have been identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 600 feet of their original location, floral resources shall be planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location shall be no more than 4,900 feet (1.5-kilometers) from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests.

COMMENT 6: California Ridgway’s Rail and California Black Rail, Section 4.3.3,

Page 4 ends

Issue: The DPEIR depicts the Study Area as occurring adjacent to and upstream of northern coastal salt marsh habitat that supports populations of California Ridgway’s rail (CRRA) and California black rail (BLRA). The extent of the Study Area contains coastal creeks that drain into San Francisco Bay through a series of sloughs along Bair Island and may serve as wildlife movement corridors for species that are known to occur in the vicinity. Though the DPEIR identifies CRRA and BLRA as occurring in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area, it does not include analysis of the potential for Project development to impact these species, nor does it include measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate potentially significant impacts to CRRA or BLRA.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence impact would be significant: CRRA is a state and federally endangered and state fully protected species, and BLRA is a state threatened and state fully protected species. These species are at great conservation risk and are experiencing serious population declines or range retractions. Project activities could include impacts such as generation of noise, groundwork, and operation and movement of equipment and workers that would have the potential to disturb CRRA or BLRA foraging, roosting, and nesting. Direct mortality of CRRA or BLRA could occur through nest abandonment, loss of potential foraging habitat resulting in reduced reproductive success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young), inadvertent entrapment or entrainment, or impingement.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-13
cont.

AG4-14
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 13 ends

Recommendation 6: CDFW recommends the PEIR provide an assessment of the potential for the Project to impact CRRA and BLRA, and incorporate the following mitigation measure to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on these species.

Recommended CRRA and BLRA Mitigation Measure: A CDFW and USFWSapproved biologist shall conduct protocol-level surveys of CRRA and BLRA in all suitable habitats adjacent to the Project using the 2017 California Clapper Rail Survey Protocol to determine where CRRA or BLRA are present in each year of construction (Wood et al. 2017). CDFW staff are available to collaborate to incorporate calls of BLRA into the protocol to ensure that both species are sufficiently surveyed.

If CRRA or BLRA are found in suitable habitat near the Project site, appropriate buffers shall be incorporated to avoid and minimize impacts to CRRA and BLRA.

A 700-foot no-work buffer shall be implemented between construction activities and any current-year breeding CRRA and BLRA detections if construction cannot be avoided during the rail breeding season (January 15- August 31 for CRRA, February 1- August 31 for BLRA). If establishing a 700-foot buffer around, breeding rail detections is not feasible, noise reducing modifications to equipment as well as portable acoustic barriers/blankets placed near noise sources may be appropriate to reduce auditory and visual impacts to breeding rails. Note that these noise reduction features may be appropriate regardless of time of year to minimize impacts to foraging rails as well. A qualified avian biologist shall advise and support buffer establishment in consultation with CDFW.

Fully protected species such as CRRA and BLRA may not be taken or possessed at any time. In the event a fully protected species is found within or adjacent to the Project site, an agency-approved qualified biologist shall implement an appropriate no-disturbance buffer and allow the individual to leave the Project site of its own volition. The qualified biologist shall also be on-site during all Project activities to ensure that fully protected species are not being disturbed by Project activities.

COMMENT 7: Special-Status Plants, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-18- 4.3-20 Issue: The DPEIR identifies the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the Study Area, including Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum), San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), Hillsborough chocolate lily (Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana), arcuate bushmallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus), woodland woolleythreads (Monolopia gracilens), chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-14
cont.

AG4-15
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 14 ends

joaquinana), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), yet the DPEIR does not provide avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures to address potential temporary or permanent impacts to these species due to Project development.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence impact would be significant: Hillsborough chocolate lily and Contra Costa goldfields have a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) or 1B.1, and Franciscan onion, San Francisco collinsia, western leatherwood, arcuate bushmallow, woodland woolleythreads, alkali milk-vetch, and San Joaquin spearscale all have a CRPR of 1B.2. Plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened. Most plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. The additional threat rank of 0.1 and 0.2 indicates that over 80 percent, and 20 to 80 percent of their occurrences are threatened, respectively.

Chaparral ragwort has a CRPR of 2B.2, and is threatened in California but more common elsewhere, with 20 to 80 percent of its occurrences threatened.

The conservation of special-status native plants is essential to maintaining biodiversity in the California Bay Area. Native plants are better adapted to the local environment, allowing them to grow more efficiently, require less maintenance, and provide habitat resources for other native species (Berthon et al. 2020). Industrial land development is a leading threat to endangered plant communities, causing resource depletion through direct habitat replacement and increased input of pollutants into the environment (Czech et al. 2000). Limited distribution and small population sizes of special-status plants can increase the difficulty in species detection, and robust survey efforts are imperative to determine whether plant species protected under the CESA and NPPA occur within the Project area. Robust and timely survey efforts are a necessary first step in avoiding take of listed species.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, section 15380, the status of special-status plants as CRPR 1 or 2 species qualifies them as endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA (see: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/california-rare-plant-ranks). If special-status plants occur within or adjacent to Project sites and would be directly or indirectly impacted by Project development, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number or restriction in the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species, a mandatory finding of significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a).

Recommendation 7: CDFW recommends the PEIR incorporate the following mitigation measure to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on specialstatus plants.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-15
cont.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 15 ends

Recommended Special-Status Plant Mitigation Measure: Prior to construction at all Project sites not composed of hardscape or ornamental vegetation, a qualified biologist shall conduct botanical surveys during the appropriate blooming period and conditions for all special-status plants that have the potential to occur at or adjacent to each site where plants could be indirectly impacted. Surveys shall be conducted following CDFW’s Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SurveyProtocols#377281280-plants) and include checking reference sites for target special-status plant species. Per this protocol, more than one year of surveys may be necessary if, for example, lack of rain inhibits growth of annual plants. If any special-status plant species are observed, the Project shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and provide an avoidance plan to CDFW and obtain CDFW written approval of the plan. If full avoidance is not possible, Project activities may not commence until the Project has consulted with CDFW and obtained CDFW’s written approval prior to the start of construction, which may include salvaging topsoil, transplanting and monitoring individuals, compensatory habitat mitigation, or other measures, based on the life history of the species and other relevant factors.

Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?
COMMENT 8: Riparian Delineation and Setbacks, Section 4.3.3, Page 4.3-21 Issue: The DPEIR describes existing conditions and includes a figure depicting vegetation and habitat types that are found within the extent of the Project Study Area. The DPEIR states that “although mostly urbanized, Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont and Cordilleras Creeks support areas of riparian habitat.” Though the DPEIR references goals and policies within the 2045 General Plan Reset that would be protective of riparian areas, those areas of riparian habitat adjacent to Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont and Cordilleras Creeks are not depicted in the map of vegetation and habitat types in the DPEIR, nor is their extent described elsewhere. Additionally, the DPEIR states that future development would be required to comply with SCMC Section 18.144.040, which requires a 25-foot setback from the top of bank on each side of the creek to protect waterways.

Per CEQA Guidelines section 15125 (a), EIRs must include descriptions of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project, and this environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant, the purpose of which is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-15
cont.

AG4-16
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 16 ends

understandable picture practically possible of the Project’s likely near-term and longterm impacts. The DPEIR does not provide sufficient information on the location, extent, or species composition of riparian areas adjacent to Cordilleras, Belmont, Brittan or Pulgas Creeks, in order to facilitate meaningful review of potential significant impacts of future development within the EIR Study Area. Further, in the absence of sufficient information to establish baseline physical conditions, it is unclear whether 25-foot riparian setbacks as prescribed in SCMC Section

18.144.040 would be sufficient to reduce potentially significant impacts of Project development on riparian habitat to less-than-significant levels. Lastly, Streambank armoring (e.g., with riprap and other hardscape materials) has the potential to result in significant impacts to stream resources and is commonly needed and reasonably foreseeable where riparian buffer distances are not sufficiently wide.

Specific impact, why impact would occur, and evidence impact would be significant: Riparian vegetation, and associated floodplains, provide many essential benefits to stream and aquatic species habitat (Moyle 2002, CDFW 2007). As stated in the DPEIR, “riparian habitat is a distinct plant community found along the margins of creeks and rivers,” and “has a very high value to wildlife and generally exhibits a rich and diverse animal community.” Development adjacent to the riparian zone can result in fragmentation of riparian habitat and decreases in native species abundance and biodiversity (Davies et al. 2001, Hansen et al. 2005, CDFW 2007).

Riparian buffers help keep pollutants from entering adjacent waters, benefiting species who rely on those waters for habitat and drinking water. Narrow riparian buffers are considerably less effective in minimizing the effects of adjacent development than wider buffers (Castelle et al. 1992, Brosofske et al. 1997, Dong et al. 1998, Kiffney et al. 2003, Moore et al. 2005).

Riparian habitats also contribute to bank stability and provide flood protection.

Development, including increases in impervious surfaces and installation of stormwater systems and storm drain outfalls, can modify natural streamflow patterns by increasing the magnitude and frequency of high flow events and storm flows (Hollis 1975, Konrad and Booth 2005). Riparian habitat and adjacent wetlands and floodplains are critical to lessening these impacts because they store and meter floodwaters, recharge groundwater aquifers, trap sediment, filter pollution, help minimize erosion, lessen peak flow velocities, and protect against storm surges. In doing so, they protect adjacent upland, down-stream, and coastal properties from loss and damage during flooding and help maintain surface and groundwater during summer months.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 17 ends

Cordilleras, Brittain and Pulgas Creeks and their tributaries as significant open space areas” to “function as appropriate open space areas, greenbelt and to support a riparian habitat.”
Recommendation 8: CDFW recommends the PEIR include sufficient information to facilitate meaningful review of potentially significant impacts of Project development within riparian habitat. Specifically, CDFW recommends conducting habitat assessments to determine the location, extent, and vegetation composition of riparian areas in the EIR Study Area and include this information in detailed map depictions in the PEIR. CDFW also recommends the PEIR include supporting technical analysis to demonstrate the proposed 25-foot riparian buffer distance is protective of stream resources. In addition to establishing a minimum riparian buffer such as the proposed 25-foot distance, the following site-specific mitigation measure is recommended for inclusion in the PEIR to protect riparian areas:

Recommended Riparian Setback Mitigation Measure: Prior to project development in the vicinity of streams, wetlands, or other aquatic areas, an agency-approved qualified biologist shall conduct habitat surveys to identify riparian boundaries and determine the size of site-specific buffers necessary to protect riparian areas. Consideration for appropriate riparian buffer widths shall depend on site-specific characteristics such as the area and type of habitat to be buffered, the presence of habitat for sensitive species and their potential habitat use, site topography, slope, slope stability, and soils present at a particular site.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-17
AG4-18
AG4-16
cont.

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 18 ends

(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DPEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Shannon Husband, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 337-1364 or [email protected]; or Wesley Stokes, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 339-6066 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento

REFERENCES
Berthon, K., Thomas, F., and Bekessy S. 2020. The role of ‘nativeness’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205 (2021) 103959.

Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington.

Ecological Applications 7:1188-1200.

California Department of Transportation. 2019. Caltrans Bat Mitigation: A Guide to Developing Feasible and Effective Solutions.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T.

Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetlands buffers use and effectiveness.

Adolfson Associates, Inc., Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Pub. No. 92-10.

CDFW. 2007. California wildlife: conservation challenges. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 AG4-18
cont.

AG4-19
l
~
DocuSigned by:
g,-?MI, (}~
877E9A6211 EF486 ...

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 19 ends

Czech, Brian & Krausman, Paul & Devers, Patrick. (2000). Economic Associations Among Causes of Species Endangerment in the United States. Bioscience. 50.

10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0593:EAACOS]2.0.CO;2.

Davies, K.F., C. Gascon, and C.R. Margules. 2001. Habitat fragmentation:
consequences, management, and future research priorities. Pages 81-97 in:

M.E. Soule and G. H. Orians, (eds.) Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Dong, J., J. Chen, Brosofske, K.D., and R.J. Naiman, 1998. Modeling air temperature gradients across managed small streams in western Washington. Journal of Environmental Management 53:309-321.

Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, S. F. Jordan, M. Blackburn, and A. Code. 2018. A petition to the state of California Fish and Game Commission to list the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety. Sacramento, CA.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=161902&inline.

Hollis, G. 1975. The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval.

Water Resources Research 11:431-435.

Kiffney, P. M., J. S. Richardson, and J. P. Bull. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams.

Journal of Applied Ecology 40:1060-1076.

Konrad, C.P. and D.B. Booth. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance, paper presented at American Fisheries Society Symposium, American Fisheries Society.

Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:813-834.

Moyle P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis Sirtalis Tetrataenia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 77 pp.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
City of San Carlos
February 25, 2025

Page 20 ends

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Species Account San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis Sirtalis Tetrataenia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025. Bats are one of the most important misunderstood animals. Available online at: Bats are one of the most important misunderstood animals, https://www.fws.gov/story/bats-are-one-most-important-misunderstoodanimals.

Wood, J.K., Nur, N., Salas, L. and O.M.W. Richmond. 2016. Site-specific Protocol for Monitoring Marsh Birds: Don Edwards San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuges. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region Refuge Inventory and Monitoring Initiative. Point Blue Conservation Science. Petaluma, CA.

Docusign Envelope ID: C0486842-2772-420E-B7E5-B7B7BD244F91 COMMISSIONERS: RAY MUELLER, CHAIR, COUNTY ▪ VIRGINIA CHANG KIRALY, VICE CHAIR, SPECIAL DISTRICT ▪ KATI MARTIN, SPECIAL DISTRICT ▪ DEBBIE RUDDOCK, CITY▪ STEPHEN RAINALDI, CITY ▪ JACKIE SPEIER, COUNTY ▪ ANN DRAPER, PUBLIC ALTERNATES: KATHRYN SLATER-CARTER, SPECIAL DISTRICT ▪ GREG WRIGHT, CITY ▪ JAMES O’NEILL, PUBLIC ▪ NOELIA CORZO, COUNTY STAFF: ROB BARTOLI, EXECUTIVE OFFICER ▪ SARAH FLAMM, MANAGEMENT ANALYST ▪ TIM FOX, LEGAL COUNSEL▪

DIANE ESTIPONA, CLERK
February 25, 2025
Sent Via Email
City of San Carlos
Attn: Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, California, 94070
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2045 General Plan Reset Dear Ms. Chopra,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the 2045 General Plan Reset for the City of San Carlos.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is a state mandated agency established in every county to oversee the boundaries of cities and special districts. San Mateo LAFCo has jurisdiction over the boundaries of the 20 cities, 22 independent special districts, and many of the 33 active county and city governed special districts serving San Mateo County.

The DEIR states that the scope of the study area includes land both within the existing City limits as well as lands within the LAFCo designated Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City. LAFCo support the inclusion of the City’s SOI area within the study area.

San Mateo LAFCo has the following comments on the DEIR and the 2045 General Plan Reset:
• The DEIR notes that the City is not proposing any changes to the current City general plan land use designations for lands in the SOI. The SOI is the plan for the probable physical boundaries and service areas of a local agency. The LAFCo designated SOI for the City includes the unincorporated areas of Palomar Park, Devonshire, the Hassler area. In the 2009 General Plan, the lands within the City’s SOI did not have City land use designations. The DEIR and proposed General Plan 2045 amendments do not include any extension of City land use designations into the SOI. LAFCo encourages the City to evaluate potential land use designations for the parcels within the City’s SOI along with the development potential of the SOI areas as part of the EIR and General Plan Reset. In addition, if there are future annexations to the City from areas within the SOI, a General AG5-1
AG5-2
AG5-3

SAN MATEO
IAlil~?oo~~!.~~~!!~~~~~~~~~?.~~~~~~~
I
February 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

Plan amendment will be required for each annexation under both the current and proposed Plan, as there is no City land use designation. • Senate Bill 244 (2011) requires the cities and counties identify fringe, island, and legacy communities that are disadvantaged unincorporated communities. As part of SB 244, the land use element of a city or county must analyze the water, water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection needs or deficiencies for each identified disadvantaged unincorporated community. Under this law, Palomar Park, Devonshire, the Hassler area are considered to be fringe communities, but do not meet the definition of disadvantaged. However, as Palomar Park and portions of Devonshire rely on on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal, LAFCo encourages the City to analyze wastewater needs in these two communities as part of the General Plan Rest in a similar fashion to SB 244. Recently, the City approved a sewer connection to a parcel in the SOI to address a failing septic system. It is likely that additional septic systems within the SOI area will fail within the lifespan of the 2045 General Plan Reset.

The City should consider evaluating the City’s sewer treatment capacity and sewer infrastructure capacity for both future development and the extension of sewer infrastructure to properties within the City’s SOI as the City is the logical provider of sewer services in these areas.
• Regarding the Buildout Projects for 2024-2045, LAFCo encourages the City to also evaluate the development projections for lands within the SOI under the current County of San Mateo General Plan and Zoning regulations. and the potential of annexation of those lands to the City as part of the EIR and General Plan Update.

San Mateo LAFCo looks forward to reviewing all future documents related to the General Plan reset process and the Environmental Impact Report.

Sincerely,
Rob Bartoli
Executive Officer
[email protected]
650-363-4224
AG5-3
cont.

AG5-4
AG5-5
1 Kelly M. Rem
Attorney at Law E-mail: [email protected]
Limited Liability Partnership
2001 North Main Street, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Tel 925-953-1620 Fax 925-953-1625 March 3, 2025
By E-Mail: [email protected]
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Re: 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR
Dear Ms. Chopra:

This office represents Sequoia Union High School District (“District”). I am following up on the correspondence this office sent on October 18, 2024, on the District’s behalf, and providing additional comments and input regarding the school facilities impacts related to the City of San Carlos to Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 2045 General Plan Reset (“General Plan”).

The District’s primary concern is to ensure that the General Plan does not create significant impacts on the student population it serves, their families, District staff and teachers, and the school facilities in which they are housed. The District wishes to emphasize that this General Plan has the potential to have a profound negative effect on the students of San Carlos. To that end, the District first wishes to briefly touch on some of the concerns that do not appear to have been adequately addressed in the EIR.

First, the EIR appears to maintain the position that under Government Code section 65995 and Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”), payment of statutory developer fees constitutes full mitigation of the General Plan’s impact on the District. In our letter dated October 18, 2024, we provide a thorough explanation as to why the District disagrees with that overall position. Bottom line, statutory developer fees do not fully address the felt impact of development on the District and the community.

Next, the District remains concerned that the EIR does not adequately address the General Plan’s potential impact on Carlmont High School, where enrollment currently exceeds capacity, and on Sequoia High, located in neighboring Redwood City. The EIR seems to erroneously assume that the students generated in San Carlos could simply attend Sequoia High School. Even though Sequoia High might currently have capacity to receive some of the students generated by AG6-1
AG6-4
AG6-3
AG6-2
Lozano Smith

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Akanksha Chopra
City of San Carlos
March 3, 2025

Page 2 ends

development in San Carlos, that does not take into account the rapid rate of development that is currently occurring in Redwood City. The District already anticipates that Sequoia High will have difficulty serving students generated by development in Redwood City, and cannot guarantee such service to students. Further, most students generated by development in San Carlos would most logically feed into Carlmont High, which currently exceeds its capacity.

There would be other potential impacts to consider here, such as facilities and budgetary impacts, as well as indirect impacts, such as increased traffic, noise, pollution, safe paths to school, etc.

Third, the EIR assumes that increased demand on school facilities will “occur incrementally.” However, the basis for that assumption is unclear based on the recent rapid growth in San Carlos.

Also, whether increased demand occurs incrementally or not, the District still has the need to plan for it in advance of when those increased demands come.

In addition to these and other concerns of the District related to the EIR, the District wishes to put forth some actionable items for the City’s consideration:

1. Meet and Confer Requirements. The District requests a firm commitment from the City that when it considers approval of specific developments, the City will meet and confer in good faith with the District to consider whether the project raises school-related impacts (including indirect impacts such as traffic, pollution, noise, etc.) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This could be incorporated into the EIR, or take form in a separate agreement with the City.

The District further requests that the EIR incorporate the following language applicable to developers:

The City will require developers to meet and confer with the impacted school districts prior to approval of their specific development proposals within the General Plan regarding impacts of their development on school-related issues, and further CEQA analysis shall be undertaken as needed to address these impacts, including indirect school-related impacts.

2. School-Related Community Benefits. The District understands that the City negotiates certain community benefits through baseline requirements for developers or as part of community benefit negotiations in development agreements. See: City of San Carlos Website, Community Amenities, available at:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/community_develo pment/planning/community_benefits.php. The District would like to work with the City to create a project category of items that benefit District schools and students. Although the District has not yet consulted with its feeder district San Carlos School District on this topic, in theory this category could include projects that benefit both school districts.

AG6-4
cont.

AG6-5
AG6-6
AG6-7
I
Akanksha Chopra
City of San Carlos
March 3, 2025

Page 3 ends

Examples of school-related community benefit projects could potentially include:
 Workforce Housing: The District would like to explore with the City some of the ways that community benefit projects could serve District employee housing needs. The District has interest in a variety of workforce housing projects that would assist the District in retaining qualified employees to serve District students.

One example could involve a dedication by developers of a certain number or percentage of units within their project that are deed-restricted; the restriction could require that, before sale is opened to other potential buyers, there is a mandatory period in which the unit is first offered at fair market value to District employees for use as their primary residence. Such a restriction would help District employees in a competitive market, who might otherwise have difficulty competing against higher bidders and all-cash offers.

Providing a path for District employees to local homeownership has a clear benefit of helping the District retain qualified employees with strong ties within the community.

Another example would be development of affordable housing projects that give priority to District employees. The affordable units could be for rent, purchase, or both. These affordable housing projects would similarly allow the District to attract and retain employees who cannot otherwise afford to live in the community where they work due to the high cost of living.  Safe walking paths and safety features: Another idea to be explored would be sidewalk improvement projects, signage and crossing lights, bike lanes, and other transportation-related improvements designed to facilitate safe transportation corridors to and from school, with an emphasis on safe walking and biking paths.
 Other District-focused amenities: The District would like to explore other amenities that support District schools and students.

AG6-7
cont.

Akanksha Chopra
City of San Carlos
March 3, 2025

Page 4 ends

Sincerely,

LOZANO SMITH
Kelly M. Rem
KMR/KRB/mg
cc: Crystal Leach, Superintendent ([email protected])
Christine Gong, Assistant Superintendent, Admin. Services/CBO ([email protected]) AG6-7
cont.
3 12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1507
Page Intentionally Left Blank
1 EXHIBIT C: FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings Regarding Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091, the City of San Carlos hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from approval and implementation of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset ("proposed project") and the means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR) refers to the Draft EIR and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified.

These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR that support the EIR’s determinations regarding significant project impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the project.

In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. As shown below, all impacts would have a significant and unavoidable impact.

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project could generate emissions that could exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) regional significance thresholds and cumulative contribute to the nonattainment designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Impact AQ-2.1: Construction of development projects within the buildout horizon of the proposed project could generate emissions that could exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) regional significance thresholds and cumulative contribute to the nonattainment designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1508
2 reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current Air District Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions. At the time of preparation of this EIR, such practices include:
 Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used.
 All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.  Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compact layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.  Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) and shall be verified by the City.

Finding: Potential future development projects (individually or cumulatively) could still exceed the Air District significance thresholds for construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant and unavoidable construction-related regional air impacts from construction equipment exhaust. This finding does not preclude a finding of lessthan-significant impacts at the project level.

Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 contains the Air District’s “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects” in the bullet points listed above and contained in the Air District’s 2023 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which are recommended by the Air District to ensure construction fugitive dust emissions are less than significant. As such, fugitive dust emissions would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 has the potential to reduce construction emissions, potential future development projects (individually or cumulatively) could still exceed the Air District significance thresholds for construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant and unavoidable construction-related regional air impacts from construction equipment exhaust. This finding does not preclude a finding of lessthan-significant impacts at the project level.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1509
3 Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Impact AQ-2.2: Operation of development projects under the proposed project could generate operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) regional significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with Air District methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in the Air District’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.

If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the Districtadopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions to comply with applicable significance threshold standards during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
 Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs.  Expanding bikeway networks.
 Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
 Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
 Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards.  Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems.  Requiring all-electric buildings.
 Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-emission alternatives.  Implementing organics diversion programs.
 Expanding urban tree planting.

Finding: Implementation of the proposed project could generate emissions that would exceed the Air District’s regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOX. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, no additional mitigating measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2 would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed 2045 General Plan Reset contains goals and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within the EIR Study Area. However, at the programmatic level, it is

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1510
4 not feasible to quantify the increase in toxic air contaminants (TAC) from stationary sources associated with the proposed project or meaningfully correlate how regional criteria air pollutant emissions above the Air District’s significance thresholds correlate with basin wide health impacts.

Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Impact AQ-3: Construction emissions associated with future development projects could expose air quality-sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations and exceed the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) project-level and cumulative significance thresholds.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or Overburdened Community, as measured from the property line of the project site to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Air District. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by the Air District (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence), the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
 Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions  Electrifying warehousing docks
 Requiring use of newer equipment
 Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
 Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
 Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

Finding: Due to the proposed project potentially contributing to cumulative health risks in the area that could affect sensitive populations, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Rationale for Finding: Future development could result in new sources of TAC emissions or particulate matter (PM2.5) near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by the Air District for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gas stations), in addition to goals, policies, and actions in the proposed 2045

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1511
5 General Plan Reset, would ensure that health risks are minimized. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by the Air District, and TAC and PM2.5 project-level impacts would be less than significant. However, these projects could contribute to significant cumulative risk in the Bay Area that could affect sensitive populations and Overburdened Communities. As a result, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative health risk is considered significant and unavoidable.

Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed project could exceed the greenhouse (GHG) emissions threshold of no net increase from existing conditions and would therefore not make substantial progress toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under Senate Bill (SB) 32 or the carbon neutrality goal under Assembly Bill (AB) 1279.

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.

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
Finding: Even with the Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable effect identified in the EIR.

Rationale for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City prepares a CMAP update to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term year 2045 GHG reduction goal and State's carbon neutrality goal set by AB 1279. However, given the growth in

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1512
6 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.

Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRAN-2: The proposed project could exceed the City’s VMT significance criteria by generating VMT per service, per capita, and per employee that exceeds a threshold of 15 percent less than the regional average and by increasing total countywide VMT.

Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: The City of San Carlos shall amend its Transportation Demand Management program (San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management) to increase the required trip reduction to the extent feasible.

Finding: Even with the Mitigation Measure TRAN-2, the proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable effect identified in the EIR.

Rationale for Finding: With the amendment of the City’s TDM program to include a more stringent trip reduction requirement, the City would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from future development projects to the extent deemed feasible by the City. The City has already begun the process of updating its TDM program, as part of the Citywide Transportation Demand Management and Parking Reform Project. However, the City has not yet determined the precise amount by which the trip reduction requirement will be amended. Until such time that the TDM program is amended, this impact remains significant and unavoidable at the programmatic level, and it is unknown if the amended program would be able to achieve a VMT reduction sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This finding does not preclude future projects from identifying less-than-significant VMT impacts, or from screening out of the City’s detailed VMT analysis requirements.

Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable

WILDFIRE
Impact WILD-2: Future development during the buildout horizon of the proposed project could increase population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfire-prone areas, thereby exacerbating wildfire risks.

Mitigation Measure WILD-2: None available.

Finding: Due to the City having a responsibility to meet other, conflicting obligations, under different State and federal laws, including increasing the number and type of housing available and allowing reconstruction of homes burned by wildfires, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond the relevant laws and the policies and plans identified in the EIR. As a result, the proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale for Finding: The implementation of the proposed project could increase population, buildings, and infrastructure in areas prone to wildfires. Although the goals, policies, and actions

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1513
7 outlined in the Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Element of the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, along with mandatory State wildfire hazard reduction measures, reduce risks in these wildfire-prone areas, some impacts related to the potential increase in pollutant concentrations and the uncontrolled spread of wildfire would be reduced, but not to a less-thansignificant level.

There are numerous preventative measures the City considers in wildfire-prone areas, from defensible space requirements to wildland urban interface building code requirements. The proposed 2045 General Plan Reset includes specific policies and actions that require both existing developments and new projects to establish and maintain fire-safe vegetation around structures and roadways, enforce fire-safe standards, and create fuel breaks. Additionally, new developments will be mandated to prepare Fire Protection Plans, ensuring comprehensive measures are in place to address wildfire hazards. These strategies represent the most effective wildfire hazard reduction measures available. However, to eliminate the risks associated with wildfires, it would be necessary to prohibit development in areas designated as very high fire hazard severity zones or in the wildland urban interface. Prohibiting new development in this portion of San Carlos is not feasible or practical because the City has a responsibility to meet other, conflicting obligations, under different State laws, including increasing the number and type of housing available and allowing reconstruction of homes burned by wildfires. Therefore, this measure is considered and rejected, and there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond the policies and plans described above. Given the potential unknown impacts related to future development under the proposed project, impacts at the programmatic level are expected to remain significant and unavoidable. This conclusion does not rule out the possibility of finding less-than-significant impacts at the project-specific level.

Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Impact WILD-5: Future development during the buildout horizon of the proposed project could, in combination with other surrounding and future projects in the State Responsibility Areas, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), or Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), result in cumulative impacts associated with the exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors.

Mitigation Measure WILD-5: None available.

Finding: Due to the City having a responsibility to meet other, conflicting obligations, under different State laws, including increasing the number and type of housing available and allowing reconstruction of homes burned by wildfires, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond the policies and plans identified in the EIR and the proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable impact.

Rationale for Finding: Even with implementation of the goals, policies, and actions in the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset, the only way to fully avoid the cumulative wildfire impact is to prohibit development in the Very High FHSZs and wildland urban interface throughout the region. As a full prohibition of development in these areas is not feasible in the region, as described for Impact WILD-2, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1514
8 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, and then evaluate the comparative merits of such alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(a)). For the purpose of these findings, the term “EIR” refers to the Draft EIR and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified.

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Based on the analyses in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed project’s potentially significant environmental effects may not be avoidable or reduced to lessthan-significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the EIR.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Through the environmental review process, the City identified two (2) potential project alternatives for consideration. The following alternatives are evaluated in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR:
 No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, future development in San Carlos would continue to be subject to existing policies, regulations, development standards, and land use designations of the existing General Plan 2030. The No Project Alternative assumes development of projects already in the development pipeline only and no additional non-residential growth or adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) or the Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP). Overall residential growth would be the same as under the proposed project but, because the NEASP would not be adopted, new housing would not be introduced in the Northeast area.
 Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative. The Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative includes full buildout of development projects already in the pipeline plus 50 percent of the remaining non-residential buildout included in the proposed project. The Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative would involve the same proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would occur under the proposed project. The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures and General Plan policy amendments recommended for the proposed project would apply to the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative.

The primary purpose of an EIR’s alternative analysis is to identify and evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project that can avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant environmental effects while still achieving the basic objectives of the project. The City has developed the following project objectives:
 Allow for a mix of development to support the City’s economic resiliency and to sustain a robust local economy.
 Preserve, protect, and promote industrial, commercial, and office uses to maintain a thriving ecosystem of local businesses and to provide for local jobs.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1515
9  Provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of a diverse community, as outlined in the 2023-2031 Housing Element and for future Housing Element cycles.  Make minor updates to the 2030 General Plan to reference recent City initiatives, plans or new State/federal regulations.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate fewer significant impacts. In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be identified. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City of San Carlos.

The Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative would result in lessened environmental impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, and tribal cultural resources, and would not result in greater impacts for any resource categories.

FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
As further set forth below, the City has considered the possible alternatives identified and analyzed in the EIR and has elected to approve the proposed project described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. None of the alternatives would meet all the project objectives and the City finds that the alternatives would be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). Based on the evaluation and analysis of project alternatives set forth in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, and on the entire record of proceedings for the proposed project, the City hereby makes the following findings:
 Findings Relating to the No Project Alternative. The City considered a No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it because it is inconsistent with the project objectives.

Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented. This alternative would not allow for a mix of development to support the City’s economic resiliency and to sustain a robust local economy; preserve, protect, and promote industrial, commercial, and office uses to maintain a thriving ecosystem of local businesses and to provide for local jobs; provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of a diverse community, as outlined in the 2023-2031 Housing Element and for future Housing Element cycles; or make minor updates to the 2030 General Plan to reference recent City initiatives, plans or new State regulations. For these reasons, this alternative is infeasible as it fails to meet half of the project’s objectives, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project.
 Findings Relating to the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative. The City considered a Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative. As most of the project components would remain the same under the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative, this alternative would fulfill almost all of the project objectives and would result in an overall lower level of impact compared to the proposed project for the environmental topic areas of air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, the Reduced Non-Residential Buildout Alternative would

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1516
10 not meet the project objectives of allowing for a mix of development to support the City’s economic resiliency and to sustain a robust local economy, and of preserving, protecting, and promoting industrial, commercial, and office uses to maintain a thriving ecosystem of local businesses and to provide for local jobs. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected as it fails to meet key project’s objectives, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1517
PlaceWorks 1
EXHIBIT D: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 2045 General Plan Reset, herein referred to as the “proposed project” or “project.” The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:
 The full text of the mitigation measures;
 The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;  The timing for implementation of the mitigation measures;  The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and  The monitoring action and frequency.

The City of San Carlos must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1518
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESE T FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency

AIR QUALITY
AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential
project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current Air District methodology for
assessing air quality impacts identified in the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the District-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current Air District Best Management Practices for constructionrelated fugitive dust emissions. At the time of preparation of this EIR, such practices include:
 Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access
roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to
control dust emissions.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
 All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
 All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used.

Project
applicants for
development
projects subject
to CEQA
Prior to
discretionary
approval by the
City
City of San
Carlos Building
Division,
Planning
Division
Review and
approve
technical
assessment and
mitigation
measures, if
required;
Verify mitigation
measures, if
required, are
incorporated into
construction
documents
Once for review;
Once for
verification

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1519
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PlaceWorks 3
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
 All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20
mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
 Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100
feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compact layer of wood chips,
mulch, or gravel.
 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact
at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate
construction documents (e.g., construction management
plans) and shall be verified by the City.

AQ-2.2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with Air District methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in the Air District’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.

If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the District-adopted thresholds of
significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant Project
applicants for
development
projects subject
to CEQA
Prior to
discretionary
approval by the
City
City of San
Carlos Building
Division,
Planning
Division
Review and
approve
technical
assessment and
mitigation
measures
Once

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1520
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESE T FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
emissions to comply with applicable significance threshold standards during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan
adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review.

Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
 Unbundling residential parking costs from property
costs.
 Expanding bikeway networks.
 Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
 Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
 Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope
Energy Efficiency Standards.
 Establishing on-site renewable energy generation
systems.
 Requiring all-electric buildings.
 Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with
zero-emission alternatives.
 Implementing organics diversion programs.
 Expanding urban tree planting.

AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or
Overburdened Community, as measured from the property
line of the project site to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA shall be
Project
applicants for
projects subject
to discretionary
approval by the
City
Prior to
discretionary
approval
City of San
Carlos
Planning
Division,
Building
Division
Review health
risk assessment
and control
technologies, if
required;
Verify
incorporation
into conditions
or approval or
mitigation
Once for review;
Once for
verification

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1521
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PlaceWorks 5
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
and the Air District. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by the Air District (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence), the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and
demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level.

T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
 Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control
Measures idling restrictions
 Electrifying warehousing docks
 Requiring use of newer equipment
 Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a
portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
 Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
 Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1522
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESE T FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6 APRIL 202 5
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: The City of San Carlos shall prepare an update to its Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term GHG reduction goal set by AB 1279. The updated CMAP shall be completed within
three years of certification of the General Plan EIR. The updated CMAP shall be updated every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the CMAP’s progress toward
achieving the City’s GHG reduction target(s), and the City shall amend the CMAP if it is not achieving such targets.

The CMAP update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under AB
1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CMAP update.

The CMAP update shall include the following:
 GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG
levels.
 Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to
ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction
goal and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 of AB
1279.
 Plan implementation guidance that includes, at
minimum, the following components consistent with the
CMAP update:
 Administration and Staffing
 Finance and Budgeting
 Timelines for Measure Implementation
 Community Outreach and Education
 Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
 Tracking Tools
City of San
Carlos
Within three
years of
certification of
the 2045
General Plan
Reset EIR;
Prepare
subsequent
updates every
five years
City of San
Carlos
Community
Development
Department
Confirm Climate
Mitigation and
Adaptation Plan
(CMAP) updates
Once after three
years for initial
update;
Once every five
years for
subsequent
updates

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1523
2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PlaceWorks 7
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency

TRANSPORTATION
TRAN-2: The City of San Carlos shall amend its
Transportation Demand Management program (San Carlos
Municipal Code Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand
Management) to increase the required trip reduction to the extent feasible.

City of San
Carlos
Within one year
following
certification of
the 2045
General Plan
Reset EIR
City of San
Carlos
Planning
Division
Confirm
amendment
Once

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1524
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2030 CITY OF SAN CARLOS’ GENERAL PLAN’S

INTRODUCTION, LAND USE ELEMENT, CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS

ELEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT, AND NOISE ELEMENT AS PART OF THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN RESET PROJECT.
___________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, in July 2023 the City Council of the City of San Carlos approved a Professional Services Agreement with PlaceWorks for consulting services to prepare an update to the 2030 General Plan and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), altogether referred to as the “2045 General Plan Reset Project”, to reset the development projections to the year 2045 for citywide commercial, office, industrial and residential uses in response to the continued development interest in the City’s East side and two new Specific Plans underway in the City; and
WHEREAS, the San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset project includes these interrelated documents: the San Carlos 2030 General Plan with proposed amendments to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element; and associated Draft EIR and Final EIR which together constitute the EIR for the project; and WHEREAS, the focus of this resolution relates to amendments to the San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the revised development projections to the year 2045 to inform the General Plan update and on June 3, 2024 released a Notice of Preparation of EIR and solicited public input from June 3, 2024, to July 3, 2024 on the scope of EIR; and WHEREAS, the City conducted stakeholder group meetings between September 2024 and October 2024 to solicit input on the project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendments to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element and the Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset Project and circulated for a 45-day public review from January 17, 2025, to March 3, 2025 to solicit agency and public input on the analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the project and amendments to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2025, the City conducted a Public Hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regular meeting to present the proposed General Plan amendments and findings of Draft EIR and solicit input from the public and Planning and Transportation Commission on the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the City Council held a Study Session to review the proposed General Plan amendments to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1525
Element, and Noise Element and provided comments to the staff; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Government Code Section 65300 et seq., the amendments made to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element have been developed to be comprehensive, internally consistent, long-term, and to address State law requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos referred the proposed amendments to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset project on May 5, 2025 and adopted PTC Resolution No. 2025- 06 recommending that the City Council adopt proposed amendments to the Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the Planning and Transportation Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR as adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and as adequate and complete for consideration in making a decision on the merits of amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos’ General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element; and further recommends to the City Council that based on the findings set forth in the PTC Resolution No. 2025 - 05 adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED BY THE SAN CARLOS CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. Findings
a. The above recitals are incorporated by reference.
b. The amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos’ General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element, and uphold the 2009 San Carlos General Plan as a comprehensive, long-term document capable of guiding the future development of the City.
c. The amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos’ General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element meets all the requirements for such plans as contained in the Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code, sections 65300-65303.4) and other laws.

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1526

2. Adoption
a. The City Council adopts the amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos’ General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element as set forth in Exhibit A. A glossary of page references of amendments is included in Exhibit B and a summary of policy and action item amendments is included in Exhibit C.
* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibits:

A. Amendments to General Plan
B. Glossary of Page References
C. GPA Summary
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

12.b
May 27, 2025 Packet Pg. 1527
San Carlos
2030 General Plan
Adopted October 12, 2009 (Resolution No. 2009-078)
Amended January 23, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-009)
Amended (Date, Year) (Resolution No. 2025-xxx)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PLAN i

1. Introduction 2

2. General Plan Vision 16

3. Land Use Element 20

4. Housing Element Under separate cover

5. Circulation & Scenic Highways Element 84

6. Environmental Management Element 110

7. Parks & Recreation Element 156

8. Environmental Safety & Public Services Element 182

9. Noise Element 258

10. General Plan Preparers 200
Appendices
Appendix A: Hazardous Material Sites
Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms
ii GENERAL PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 General Plan Components.....................................5 Figure 1-2 Regional Location.....................................................7 Figure 1-3 City Limit and Sphere of Influence Areas...........8 Figure 3-1 Planning Areas........................................................ 26 Figure 3-2 General Plan Land Use Map................................ 29 Figure 3-3 Redevelopment Areas.......................................... 34 Figure 3-34 Major Developed Areas in San Carlos Key
District Characteristics in San Carlos............... 55 Figure 3-45 Gateways................................................................. 63 Figure 6-1 Vegetation and Habitat Types.......................... 114 Figure 6-2 Wetlands and Waterbodies.............................. 115 Figure 6-3 Known Occurrences of Sensitive Species and
Habitat……………………………………...117
Figure 7-1 Parks, Open Space Sites, and Vacant Land.... 161 Figure 7-2 Residences More Than ½ Mile from a City
Park…………………………………………162
Figure 7-3 Parks and Open Space ....................................... 165 Figure 7-4 Existing and Planned Trails................................ 166 Figure 8-1 Regional Faults and Historical Earthquakes.. 191 Figure 8-2 Area Faults........................................................... 192 Figure 8-3 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation193 Figure 8-4 CGS Regulatory Maps ....................................... 194 Figure 8-5 USGS Earthquake Scenario Map ..................... 195 Figure 8-6 Liquefaction Potential ........................................ 196 Figure 8-7 Expansive Soils..................................................... 197 Figure 8-8 Landslide Hazard Areas..................................... 198 Figure 8-9 FEMA Flood Zones ............................................ 202 Figure 8-10 Dam Inundation Areas...................................... 203 Figure 8-11 Fire Hazard Severity Zones............................. 209 Figure 8-12 Evacuation Routes.............................................. 210 Figure 8-13 Single Access Roads........................................... 211 Figure 8-14 Projected Extreme Heat Days in San Carlos227 Figure 8-15 Sea Level Rise 2050............................................ 231 Figure 8-16 Sea Level Rise 2100............................................ 232 Figure 8-17 At Risk due to Sea Level Rise.......................... 233 Figure 8-18 Elementary School Districts ............................ 248 Figure 8-19 Sheriff Station Service Areas............................ 249 Figure 8-20 Fire Station Service Areas................................ 250 Figure 9-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environment ........................................................ 263 Figure 9-2 San Carlos Airport Noise Contour Map...... 264 Figure 9-3 2030 Traffic and Railroad Noise Level
Contours............................................................. 265

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PLAN iii
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Existing Land Use in San Carlos.......................... 22 Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations
Within the City Limit............................................. 28 Table 3-3 Housing, Population and Job Growth
Under the General Plan......................................... 53 Table 3-4 Commercial, Office, Research and Development, and Industrial Growth Under the General Plan 54
Table 3-5 Primary and Secondary Gateways in San
Carlos........................................................................ 62 Table 5-1 Traffic Capacity Range ........................................... 86 Table 5-2 Level of Service (Transportation
Research Board)...................................................... 88 Table 5-32 Intersection Level of Service................................ 91 Table 6-1 Government Code Open Space
Classifications......................................................... 110 Table 6-2 Sensitive Species Found in the City Limit
and Sphere of Influence ....................................... 118 Table 7-1 San Carlos City Parks.......................................... 158 Table 7-2 Open Space Areas................................................ 163 Table 7-3 Potential San Carlos Trail Connections........... 167 Table 8-1 Estimated Maximum Parameters for Major
Known Faults Affecting the Project Area....... 189
Table 9-1 Non-Transportation Noise Standards............. 187 Table 9-2 2009 Vehicular Traffic Noise on Major
Roadways................................................................ 188 iv GENERAL PLAN
Land Acknowledgement
The City of San Carlos acknowledges that our lands are located on the ancestral homeland of the Ohlone peoples, and that, as the original stewards of this land, the Ohlone understood the interconnectedness of all things and maintained harmony with nature for millennia.

Introduction
2 GENERAL PLAN
1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose
In California, General Plans serve as the “Constitution” for all future development in cities. The General Plan
provides the fundamental basis for the City’s land use
and development policy, and represents the basic
community values, ideals and aspirations to govern a
shared environment over the life of the General Plan.

The General Plan addresses all aspects of development
including land use, environmental management and
sustainability, traffic and circulation, housing, parks and recreation and other topics. The General Plan’s
policies are implemented through the Municipal Code,
which includes the Zoning Code, Building and
Construction Code, Subdivision Ordinance and other
City regulations. Further, the General Plan’s policies
also impact the goals, objectives and strategies of the Redevelopment Agency’s Redevelopment
Implementation Plan. City staff in all departments will implement the actions detailed in the plan.

Contents
2 Purpose
3 General Plan Contents
6 The City and Its Planning Area
9 San Carlos Today
11 The General Plan Update Process
The General Plan establishes a framework for how the City will grow and change over the next two decades.

It establishes goals, policies and actions that will guide growth, conservation, and enhancement in San Carlos over the next 20 years.

GENERAL PLAN 3
1 INTRODUCTION
California Government Code Section 65300 requires that
the General Plan be comprehensive, internally consistent and long-term. Although it is required to address the
issues specified by State law, the General Plan may be
ultimately organized in a way that best suits San Carlos.

The Plan should be clearly written, available to all those concerned with the community’s development and easy
to administer. This document supersedes the previous
General Plan, adopted in 1992, the East Side Specific Plan adopted in 1991 and the West Side Specific Plan adopted in 1994 and all amendments to these Plans.

The overall role of the General Plan is to:
 Define a realistic vision of what the City desires to be in 20 years.
 Express policy direction in regard to the physical,
social, economic, cultural and environmental
character of the city.
 Serve as a comprehensive guide for making
decisions about land use, circulation,
environmental management, parks and recreation,
housing, noise public health and safety.
 Provide the legal foundation for zoning,
subdivision and public facilities ordinances, other
adopted Citywide plans, compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
decision and projects decisions and projects, all of
which must be consistent with the General Plan.
 Present a clear and easy to understand format that
encourages public participation and
understanding.

General Plan Contents
The General Plan is divided into seven elements:
 Land Use Element. The Land Use Element
designates where lands can be developed for
specific uses such as residential, commercial,
industrial, open space, public facilities and mixed
uses. It also provides development regulations for
each land use designation and overall land use
policies.
 Housing Element. The Housing Element is
intended to provide for the maintenance and
development of housing for City residents. It is
completed pursuant to Government Code Section
65588, which requires the Housing Element be
updated every five eight years. It analyzes existing
housing stock, analyzes existing and projected
housing needs, and quantifies the number of
1 INTRODUCTION
4 GENERAL PLAN
housing units that may be developed, preserved
and improved through its policies and actions. The
Housing Element covers the Planning period 2009
2023 to 203114.
 Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. The
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element specifies
the general location and extent of existing major
streets and other transportation facilities. This
Element, as updated in May 2005 and amended in
2008, is carried forward.
 Environmental Management Element. The
Environmental Management Element focuses on
the protection, preservation and enhancement of
natural resources in San Carlos. To achieve this, it
combines two elements required under State law:
the Open Space Element and the Conservation
Element. It provides for the protection of open
space, conservation of biological resources,
protection of water and air quality and adaptation
strategies and reduction measures for greenhouse
gas emissions and reduction of solid waste.
 Parks and Recreation Element. The Parks and
Recreation Element provides for parks, open space,
trails and recreational activities for San Carlos.
 Environmental Safety and Public Services
Element. The Environmental Safety and Public
Services Element is intended to help prepare the
community for risks associated with natural and
artificial hazards. This Element also describes the
public services available to residents of San Carlos.
 Noise Element. The Noise Element identifies
sources of noise and provides for reduction of
noise that negatively impacts the community.

San Carlos Train Station
1 INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PLAN 5
These principles, goals, policies and actions provide
guidance to the City on how to direct change and manage its resources over the next 20 years. These may not all be fully realized during the planning period due to fiscal constraints.

Figure 1-1 illustrates that policies and actions are at the same level of importance, and are both intended to
implement goals. In most cases, goals have both
implementing policies and actions. In some cases a goal may be implemented exclusively through either policies
or actions.

FIGURE 1-1 GENERAL PLAN COMPONENTS
Each element of this General Plan contains background information, guiding principles, and a series of goals, policies and actions.

Guiding Principle. A guiding principle is an
overarching choice or direction which becomes
a touchstone leading the creation of all the goals,
policies, and actions.

Goals: A goal is a description of the general
desired result that the City seeks to create
through the implementation of its General Plan.

Policies: A policy is a specific statement that
guides decision-making as the City works to
achieve a goal. Such policies, once adopted,
represent statements of City regulation and require no further implementation. The General Plan’s policies set out the standards that will be
used by City staff, the Planning Commission and
City Council in their review of land
development projects and in decision-making
processes.

Actions. An action is a program,
implementation measure, procedure, or
technique intended to help achieve a specified
goal. The City must take additional steps to
implement each action in the General Plan.
1 INTRODUCTION
6 GENERAL PLAN
Using the General Plan
The General Plan is a document intended to be used by
a variety of people. Some of the key groups that will use the General Plan include elected and appointed City
officials, City staff, City residents and individuals
proposing new development projects. For all of these
users, the General Plan identifies the context and
expectations for how San Carlos will grow and change.

This General Plan is written and designed to
communicate information in a clear and accessible
manner.

The City and its Planning Area
San Carlos is located on the San Francisco Peninsula,
between Belmont and Redwood City as shown in Figure
1-2. The city limit extends to the City of Belmont to the northwest, the San Francisco Bay to the northeast, the
City of Redwood City to the southeast and
unincorporated San Mateo County to the southwest.

Since the surrounding communities that border San
Carlos are largely built out, the Planning Area includes only the city limit and the Sphere of Influence (SOI). The city limit and SOI are shown in Figure 1-3 (Revised
October, 2024).

Government Code Section 56076 defines a SOI as a “plan
for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission.” The
term “commission” refers to the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCo). A SOI is an area
within which a city may expand its boundaries and
services through the process of annexation. The
purpose of a SOI is to encourage “logical and orderly
development and coordination of local governmental
agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.”
San Carlos’ SOI includes three areas of San Mateo
County. Devonshire Area, which includes an island
referred to as Devonshire Canyon located within the city limit and nearby 17-acre Devonshire area adjacent to
Club Drive, Cranfield Avenue and the City of Belmont;
Palomar Park, a neighborhood which lies to the south of the city limit; and Pulgas Ridge (formally designated as Hassler Area by LAFCo), an area that includes Pulgas
Ridge Open Space Preserve and several San Mateo
County institutional facilities.
('&
1 INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PLAN 9

GENERAL PLAN 9
San Carlos Today
San Carlos is a community with a strong sense of
place and a distinct village feel. This section briefly discusses the City’s history, population and housing
and the opportunities and constraints they present
for this General Plan.

Brief History
The first known human inhabitants of the San Carlos
area were the Ohlone, who were also known as the
Costanoans. Historians believe that two sub-tribes
existed in and around San Carlos, the Salson to the
north of Belmont Creek and Lhamshin around the
greater San Carlos area. Spanish settlement of the
area, beginning in 1769, led to the dispersal of the
tribes to the Spanish missions and eventually the
disappearance of the Ohlone as a cultural group.

Colonization of the San Francisco Bay Area
accelerated in 1776 with the establishment of the
Mission San Fran- cisco de Asis. By the 1790s, the
mission and other San Francisco establishments were
being supported by small farms as far south as San
Mateo. To encourage further settlement of the area,
the Spanish government granted land to retired
soldiers and men of influence.

Don Jose Dario Arguello, commandante of the Presidio at San Francisco and later governor of Alta California received a 35,000- acre land grant that encompassed what would later become Atherton, Belmont, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos and part of San Mateo.

Early attempts to develop San Carlos began in the late 1800s. These early efforts were generally not successful until 1917, when the Mercantile Trust Company hired Fred Hugh Drake, a prominent real estate and business promoter to oversee the development of the city. Drake expanded infrastructure, established a chamber of commerce, encouraged the development of housing and gave the city the motto “The City of Good Living.”
The Devonshire Hills subdivision was one of the first
neighborhoods in San Carlos and was established by Drake in 1924, one year before the City’s incorporation in 1925. This subdivision used principles from the Garden City urban planning movement, establishing dog-leg cul-de-sacs and pass-through walkways.

Commercial development followed soon after the establishment of residential neighborhoods. Support businesses, such as gas stations, grocery stores and a pharmacy were established by 1926 along El Camino Real. Industrial activity also came to San Carlos at this time when Fred Hugh Drake helped to bring about a Southern 10 GENERAL PLAN
Pacific spur track between San Francisco and
Sunnyvale. This rail connection led to the creation of the city’s first industrial area, located east of the railroad.

After World War II, the population in San Carlos rapidly expanded, especially after the establishment of the Dalmo Victor and Eitel McCullough electronics plants in 1944. The population quadrupled between 1940 and
1950, largely due to the presence of these two electronics plants. The electronics industry grew and by 1958 it
comprised a substantial portion of the industrial area.

Also in the late 1940s, the San Carlos Airport moved from its former location between Brittan and San Carlos
Avenues to its present site, east of Highway 101.

Additional residential development in areas east of El
Camino Real and north and south of Holly Street also
occurred at this time.

As the city grew in the 1950s, residential growth was
focused in the western hills, above Arguello Park and
west of both Alameda de las Pulgas and San Carlos
Avenue. In 1956, the City annexed 500 acres west of
the Alameda so that the area could be subdivided to
provide an additional 1,300 homes, including
apartments. In the East Side of San Carlos, growth in the service, supply and electronics industries fueled the
City’s economic development. More recently, high- tech and biotechnology firms have contributed to eco- nomic growth and transformation in San Carlos. Another recent trend has been the redevelopment of infill parcels with mixed-use and multi-family family housing in areas near Downtown and the El Camino Real transit corridor.

Population and Housing
The City of San Carlos has grown at a constant pace since its incorporation in 1925 and is expected to continue to grow in the future. The California Department of Finance estimated that the San Carlos population was 29,420 28,857 in 202408.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population in San Carlos will grow to 33,700 by 2030, representing a 16 percent increase from 2005. San Carlos’ predicted growth rate is slightly higher than San Mateo County’s (14 percent growth by 2030).

There are a variety of housing types in San Carlos, but singlefamily detached homes constitute approximately 7275 percent of San Carlos’ housing
supply. However, multi-family housing is projected to be thethe fastest growing housing type in San Car- los. Between 202400 and 204508, multi-family housing units are projected to increased by over 7 200 percent, compared to zero projected increase for single-family housing. The percentage of multifamily housing units is expected to increase due to infill GENERAL PLAN 11
development. About 705 percent of San Carlos residents
own their houses, which is a greater percent- age than
other parts of San Mateo County as a whole. and the Bay Area.

Key Issues for the General Plan
This General Plan provides policy direction on the key
issues facing San Carlos over the next 20 years. These
key issues were identified through an extensive public
participation process described in Section E below.

Some of the key issues addressed in this General Plan
include:
 Environmental Sustainability. How can San
Carlos most effectively protect its valuable natural
resources and meet present needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs?
 Community Identity. How can new development
enhance San Carlos’ unique sense of place and
respect existing residential neighborhoods?
 Housing. How can San Carlos become a more
inclusive city with affordable housing available to
all residents?
 Economic Development. What are the best ways
for San Carlos to expand the local economy while
protecting existing businesses that are important
to the community?
 Parks and Open Space. How should San Carlos
provide for the recreational needs of residents and
support open space preservation?
Goals and policies in this General Plan address these
and other questions that are important to the San Carlos community. The General Plan Vision Statement,
included in Chapter 2, also identifies key values and
aspirations held by the community.

The General Plan Update Process
The General Plan update process began in 2007 and
continued through 2009. During this period, a range of
public input opportunities occurred to ensure that an
updated General Plan reflects the community’s vision
for San Carlos. The following outreach efforts were
undertaken to involve San Carlos residents in the
process. The sections that follow describe civic
engagement efforts for the 2009 General Plan Update,
the 2023 Focused General Plan Update, and the 2045
General Plan Reset.

General Plan Advisory Committee (2009
Update)
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was
formed and was comprised of 15 members appointed by
the City Council. GPAC included individuals from
12 GENERAL PLAN
various City Commissions and Committees, as well as
members from the residential and business community
at-large. The GPAC’s charge was to examine the various
issues that contributed to the General Plan update,
provide direction through collaboration and create a
forum that effectively and efficiently implemented their charge. The GPAC helped to guide the development of
the land use alternatives, goals, policies and actions and the preparation of a preferred General Plan. GPAC
meetings were open to the public and allowed all
interested community members to voice their opinions
regarding the content and direction of the General Plan.

In total, there were 26 GPAC meetings. There were also
three subcommittees: the Climate Action Plan
Subcommittee, the Housing Sub- committee and the
Specific Plan Subcommittee. The Climate Action Plan
Subcommittee worked to prepare the Climate Action
Plan which helped inform policies and actions in the
General Plan. The Housing Sub- committee focused on
the Housing Element, ensuring that it contains all Statemandated information. The Specific Plan Subcommittee reviewed the former West Side and East Side Specific
Plans and other development policies and
recommended inclusion of appropriate policies into the
General Plan update.

Public Workshops (2009 Update)
The following workshops took place to foster
community participation in the General Plan Update
process.
 Building Community Meeting. City staff, in
conjunction with the former citizens group San
Carlos Building Community Task Force, held a
forum to present information about what a general
plan is, to describe the process of updating it and
to have break-out groups for people to brainstorm ideas.  Visioning Workshop. The Visioning Workshop
helped to formulate a vision for San Carlos’ future
and to identify issues that need to be ad- dressed
in the General Plan.
 Youth Workshop. The Youth Workshop
identified planning issues that were important to
San Carlos youth and their vision or the future of
the city.

Land Use and Policy Alternatives Workshop. The
public reviewed and commented on land use and policy
alternatives for the General Plan Up- date in this public workshop. The information gathered at the workshop
was utilized to prepare the preferred land use map and
policy alternatives which were presented during City
Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions.

GENERAL PLAN 13
 Housing Workshops. Two community
workshops on housing issues were conducted to
in- form the draft of the Housing Element.
 Climate Action Plan Workshop. One community
workshop was held to elicit community ideas on
reduction goals and supporting measures for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
energy consumption, transportation, land use and
solid waste production.

GPAC, Planning Commission and City
Council Study Sessions (2009 Update)
Based on the GPAC discussion of the Study Areas, three
citywide land use alternatives were developed for the
City of San Carlos. The GPAC discussed the
alternatives at two meetings. The result was three
unique alternatives for the future of San Carlos. Alternative 1 focused on a minimal amount of change to existing land uses. Alternative 2 focused future
development on the east and west sides of the city with moderate job growth on the east side. Alternative 3
focused housing on the west side of the city and job
growth on the east side of the city. The Planning
Commission and City Council reviewed and
commented on the alternatives. The GPAC then
prepared a draft preferred land use alternative for
review by the Planning Commission, who provided a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council
provided final direction to create the preferred land use alternative for inclusion in this plan.

Public Review Period and Adoption (2009
Update)
The following drafts and adoption procedures were a
part of the General Plan Update process:
 Preliminary Draft General Plan. A preliminary
draft of the General Plan was released for public
review on May 1, 2009. The public was invited to
comment on this document at a General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) meeting on May 13
and 14, 2009.
 Draft General Plan. The Public Review Draft
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was published in June 2009. The EIR was
prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to disclose the
potential environmental consequences of
implementation of this plan. Public comment on
these documents was received at Planning
Commission and City Council meetings in July
and August 2009.
 Final General Plan and EIR Adoption. The public
had an opportunity to comment on the Final
General Plan and EIR during public hearings with
14 15

GENERAL PLAN
the Planning Commission and City Council. These
hearings occurred in September and October 2009.
2023 Focused General Plan Update
The 2023 Focused General Plan Update
concentrated on the 2023-2030 Housing Element,
Environmental Safety and Public Services
Element, and other elements as necessary for
consistency with the Housing and Environmental
Safety and Public Services Elements’ update. A
series of community engagement events
including but not limited to community-wide
public workshops, online surveys, special needs
housing service providers focus group,
newsletters and social media news or “e-blasts”,
and study sessions with the Housing
Subcommittee, the Planning Commission, and
the City Council.

The community engagement and technical
planning/analyses phases began in 2020 and
continued through 2021 and 2022. The Focused
General Plan Update was completed in January
2023 with the certification of an EIR; the adoption
of the updated Housing, Environmental Safety
and Public Services, Land Use, Circulation and
Scenic Highways, Noise and Environmental
Management elements; and the adoption of a
Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment.
2024 General Plan Reset
The General Plan Reset was initiated in 2024 to amend the buildout capacity of the 2030 General Plan. As part of the 2045 General Plan Reset, concurrent long range planning initiatives were considered into the citywide buildout capacity. Ongoing initiatives within San Carlos included the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. The 2045 General Plan Reset was more focused than a complete General Plan Update and did not include any changes to General Plan land use designations or major policy changes; instead the focus was to adjust development projections to the year 2045. The community was informed and engaged in the project through updates on the City website, newsletters, e-news, stakeholder meetings, and study sessions and public hearings at City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission.

Fountain at Laurel Park
1 Vision Statement
2 GENERAL PLAN VISION
16 GENERAL PLAN
Background of the Vision
Statement
On January 8, 2008, the City of San Carlos held two
Visioning Workshops, the first public workshops for the General Plan Update. Approximately 60 youth attended
the Youth Workshop and 67 citizens attended the
Visioning Workshop. Individuals attending both
workshops were asked to describe San Carlos as they
would like it to be in the year 2030. The workshops
started the process for establishing a vision for the
future of San Carlos. After the workshops, a draft vision statement was prepared and presented to the GPAC, the
Planning Commission and the City Council in public
meetings in February 2008. The City Council endorsed
the Vision Statement on February 11, 2008.

The Vision Statement is a description of what San Carlos wants to become through the implementation of the General Plan. The Vision Statement provides a sense of the purpose and mission for the General Plan and sets the tone for the Plan’s guiding principles, goals, policies and actions.

Contents
Background of the Vision Statement
San Carlos General Plan Vision
Statement
GENERAL PLAN VISION 2
San Carlos General Plan Vision Statement
In 2030 San Carlos is a safe, beautiful, vibrant and livable community with tree-lined streets, open space, public art, high-quality architecture and state-of-the-art infrastructure. We enjoy a balance of residential, schools, retail, commercial and industrial uses and services that enhance our quality of life, support the fiscal health of the City and sustain a robust local economy. Downtown San Carlos is the heart of the community – a place to experience and savor the joys of daily life while enjoying a mix of stores and services.

Housing in San Carlos meets the needs of a diverse community. People who work in San Carlos can afford to live here. San Carlans are also able to work for employers located within the community. The City pursues creative solutions to economic development objectives and encourages innovative environmentally sustainable industries and businesses to locate and remain in San Carlos.

San Carlos is committed to sustainability. Sustainability promotes the use of resources in the present in a manner that does not compromise the choices and quality of life of future generations.

Mobility is part of the San Carlos way of life. It is precious to us, and we value our collective ability to freely and efficiently move about the city and region. The airport remains a unique part of our transportation system. Sidewalks, paths and bikeways connect residential neighborhoods to all commercial areas, schools, parks and open space. Destinations and places in San Carlos are accessible using all forms of transportation.

Quality educational opportunities, at all levels, are available to the entire community. Our outstanding educational system, providing both formal and informal learning opportunities, enhances our quality of life.

Public service, charitable giving, volunteerism and citizen participation are integrated into public, non-profit and educational services offered.

Community care services are inclusive for seniors and citizens with mental and physical disabilities.

San Carlans enjoy a wide variety of private and public community venues, including parks, trails, community centers, arts, museums, cultural centers and clubs, faith-based places of worship and congregation, recreational facilities, sports and other civic and cultural events. We enjoy access to affordable and high-quality health services. The City’s government contributes to our distinctive community identity and sense of civic pride.

GENERAL PLAN 17
2 GENERAL PLAN VISION
18 GENERAL PLAN
Intentionally Left Blank
Land Use
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
20 19

GENERAL PLAN
Introduction
As required by California Government Code Section
65302(a) and Public Resources Code Section 2762(a), the Land Use Element of the General Plan addresses the
following issues:
 Distribution, location and extent of the uses of
land for housing, business, industry, open space,
natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of
scenic beauty, education, public buildings and
grounds and other categories of public and private
uses of land.
 Standards of population density and building
intensity for the land use designations.

The Land Use Element focuses on development that
could potentially occur both within the existing city
limit and the city’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI The purpose of the Land Use Element is to shape the potential physical development of the City and to preserve, protect and enhance the community’s current quality of life consistent with the City’s Vision. The Land Use Element is not designed to discourage or promote development as allowed in this General Plan, but rather describes the manner in which development should be managed in the event that it does occur. The Land Use Element is the central chapter of the General Plan.

Contents
20 Introduction
21 Land Use Regulations
53 Community Character & Urban Design
76 Cultural and Historical Resources
21 20

GENERAL PLAN
is the area adjacent to or an island within the city limit that is planned for the probable physical boundary and
service area of the City.

The Land Use Element also addresses issues related to
economic development, urban design and cultural resources. For each of these topics, including land use, background information is provided followed by goals,
policies and actions. This Element also includes a
statement of Guiding Principles relating to land use in San Carlos.

Land Use Regulations
Existing Land Use in San Carlos
Details on existing land use in San Carlos are included to document the current development pattern and to
provide background for the land use goals, policies and actions.

The City is largely a residential community
characterized by a traditional Downtown area with
multi-family housing immediately adjacent and by
mainly single- family residential neighborhoods east
and west of
Downtown and extending to the western hills. San
Carlos also has a substantial industrial area and retail centers, located east of El Camino Real.

The Land Use Element is divided into three basic
sections, which cover:

Land Use Regulation: This section includes
background information about existing land use
and annexation protocol, 2030 General Plan land
use designations, and goals, policies, and actions
related to land use.

Community Character and Urban Design: This
section includes background information about
the community character of San Carlos and
goals, policies, and actions related to community
character and urban design.

Cultural Resources: This section includes
background information about cultural and
historic resources in San Carlos and related
goals, policies, and actions.

GENERAL PLAN 22
Table 3-1 quantifies the amount of different types of
land uses in San Carlos based on 2007 data from the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office. In terms of acre- age,
single-family residential is the most common land use,
representing 60 percent of the total land in San Carlos.

The second largest land use category is industrial,
representing 12 percent of the total land in San Carlos.

The following land use categories were created to
describe the existing pattern of development in San
Carlos and are not the General Plan land use
designations which are identified later in this Element.

Single-Family Residential. Single-family residential
development is the largest land use in San Carlos,
comprising 60 percent of the city’s land. Most parcels
designated as single-family contain detached units.

Single-family neighborhoods are generally located west
of Downtown, though there are two small single- family
neighborhoods in the East Side area. The existing
single-family neighborhoods will likely experience the
least amount of change during the 20-year planning
horizon of this General Plan.

Land Use Category Acres
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2007.

Percent of
Total Acres
TABLE 3-1 EXISTING LAND USE IN SAN CARLOS,
2007
Single-Family Residential 1,473 60%
Multiple-Family Residential 199 8%
Commercial 121 5%
Office 54 2%
Industrial 291 12%
Airport 19 1%
Public/Quasi-Public 97 4%
Park/Open Space 57 2%
Vacant 157 6%
Total 2,469 100%
23 23

GENERAL PLAN
The balance of the HIA to the north remains unincorporated under a compromise known as “ABC” reached between the
Cities of San Carlos and Belmont and the HIA property owners in 1997. The ABC Compromise requires San Carlos or
Belmont to meet certain conditions in order to annex the remaining unincorporated portions of the HIA. The portion of the HIA that was annexed to San Carlos conforms to both County and City industrial zoning regulations. Existing land use regulations strongly discourage housing, commercial, retail and non-industrial uses in this area.

Downtown
The Land Use Element often mentions the City’s Downtown area. The Downtown is generally defined as Laurel Street from Holly Street to Arroyo Street, including properties west to the predominantly multi-family Walnut Street and the Civic Center on Elm Street. This area is commercial in nature and marked by numerous restaurants, personal service uses, and small retail shops. The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were developed for this area of the City in order to retain and enhance the vitality of the Downtown as a central point for social interaction and commercial activity.

Note: The City is preparing two new specific plans for the downtown and northeast areas which are both on schedule to be adopted by the end of 2025.

San Carlos East Side Area
The Land Use Element frequently refers to an area known as the “East Side” area. The East Side area includes all areas of San Carlos east of the Caltrain right-of-way. Included in the East Side area are a diversity of land uses, including the Laureola residential neighborhood, the San Carlos airport, businesses serving the building industry, light industrial businesses, and retail uses. Three Landmark Sites in the East Side area were designated forredevelopment at major entries to the city. One of the Landmark Sites, located at the south end of the city on Industrial Road, has been redeveloped as office and hotel.

Recently, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation hospital, was approved for development on Industrial Road. The East Side area also has seen recent growth in regional- serving retail uses.

The San Carlos Marketplace project, located on Industrial Road at Howard Avenue, added over 100,000 square feet of
additional retail and commercial space to the area. Key issues for the East Side area that are addressed in this General Plan include: preserving existing residential neighborhoods; redeveloping the two remaining Landmark Sites on Industrial Road, north and south of Holly Street and adjacent to Highway 101 to generate additional sales tax revenue for the City.

The Harbor Industrial area (HIA) is also located in the East Side area of the City. This subarea comprises large manufacturing businesses, biotechnical and biomedical firms and light and heavy industrial uses. The majority of the area (from Belmont Creek to north of Holly Street) was annexed in 1997 after a petition for annexation was received from over 80 percent of the property owners in the HIA.

GENERAL PLAN 24
Multiple Family Residential. Multi-family housing
accounts for 8 percent of land in the city. Multi-family residential includes those parcels containing more than one housing unit, such as duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, townhomes, condominiums and apartment
buildings. In recent years, an increasing amount of infill multi-family housing development has occurred in and
around Downtown. In addition to the Downtown area,
Laurel Street and El Camino Real corridor north of
Holly Street and south of Arroyo Street, multifamily
housing is also found along the southern edge of the
Devonshire Area and along the western boundary of the
city.

Commercial. Commercial land refers to parcels that
contain a number of business types including retail,
services, restaurants, offices and medical facilities.

Commercial uses account for approximately 5 percent of
land in San Carlos. Much of the commercial land in San
Carlos is located Downtown, along Laurel Street and
along El Camino Real. Other commercial uses are
located in the East Side area along Old County Road,
Brittan Avenue and Industrial Road.

Office. Office refers to parcels that contain business, professional and medical services. Office uses occupy 2 percent of San Carlos’ area. Most office uses are located in Downtown San Carlos and in the East Side area.

Industrial. Industrial development refers to parcels
used for production and manufacturing and also
includes uses such as warehouses, services and
supplies, self-storage facilities, automobile repair
garages, re- search and development uses.

Approximately 12 percent of San Carlos’ land is
developed as industrial. Industrial uses are
concentrated in the East Side area and include large
manufacturing businesses, biotechnical and biomedical
firms and light and heavy industrial uses.

Public/Quasi-Public. Public and Quasi-Public land
uses represent 4 percent of the city’s acreage, and
include schools, libraries, City offices and utilities.

These uses are scattered throughout the city.

Park. Parks and open space account for 2 percent of San Carlos’ land and include existing City parks.
25 GENERAL PLAN
Airport. The San Carlos Airport, occupying 1 percent of the city’s area, is located in the eastern corner of the city on land owned by San Mateo County.

Vacant. Parcels that are void of any structures are
classified as vacant. Approximately 6 percent of San
Carlos’ land is vacant.

Planning Areas
During the 2009 General Plan Update process, the City
identified areas that hadve the greatest potential to
experience land use changes to 2030. over the next 20
years. This General Plan refers to these areas as
“Planning Areas.” Figure 3-1 shows the location of the
nine General Plan Planning Areas. The Planning Areas
are distinctive places in San Carlos and, as such, have specific policies and programs targeted towards them.

These areas are referenced throughout this General
Plan.

Airport Land Use Compatibility
In addition to the General Plan, there are other plans
and regulations used by the City to guide development
in specific areas of San Carlos. To foster land use
compatibility surrounding the San Carlos Airport, the
City
refers to the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport
/Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San
Carlos Airport (ALUCPCLUP). The ALUCP CLUP is
developed and updated by Airport Land Use
Commission of the San Mateo City/County Association
of Governments (C/CAG), and was most recently
adopted in in October 2015 with subsequent amendments
in October 2022 November 1996. The main goal of the
A L U C P CLUP is to minimize public exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards associated with the
airport. Public Utilities Code Section 21676 requires San Carlos’ and San Mateo County’s General Plan land use
designations and planning documents to be in
conformance with the land use plans and policies of the ALUCP CLUP.

Sphere of Influence and Annexation
The City and San Mateo Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo) have established a SOI for San
Carlos. The SOI represents the area that the City may
consider for annexation during the next 20 years. The SOI of San Carlos includes three distinct unincorporated areas.

The Devonshire Area contains Devonshire Canyon, an
island within the city limit and a 17-acre Devonshire area adjacent to Club Drive and the City of Belmont; Palomar Park, a neighborhood which lies to the south of the city lim it; and Pulgas Ridge (named Hassler Area by LAFCo)
which contains the Pulgas

27 GENERAL PLAN
Ridge Open Space Preserve and several San Mateo
County institutional facilities. These three
unincorporated areas are illustrated in Figure 3-1 and on all maps herein described as Devonshire, Pulgas Ridge
(formerly Hassler), and Palomar Park.

LAFCo oversees and adopts the SOI for each city in San
Mateo County and must approve the annexation of land
outside city boundaries. Landowners wishing to apply
for annexation into San Carlos must submit an
annexation application to the San Mateo LAFCo in
coordination with the City of San Carlos. For an
annexation application to be approved, the project must comply with the City’s Adopted Annexation Policies,
which are described below.

Residential Annexation Policies
The City of San Carlos has adopted residential
annexation policies that apply to all residential
annexations within the city’s SOI. These policies are
designed to regulate annexation in an efficient and
orderly manner and to ensure that areas annexed into
the city are compatible with all City policies. Most
significantly, the policies are designed to retain the
neighborhood character of the annexed area and the existing city neighborhoods.

Consistency with the San Mateo County
General Plan
San Mateo County has jurisdiction over land outside of
San Carlos’ city limit but within the SOI. The San Mateo County General Plan is the ultimate land use regulation in these unincorporated areas. County land use
designations for the Palomar Park area include Low
Density Residential (0.3-2.3 DUs/Ac), Medium Low
Density Residential (2.4-6.0 DUs/Ac) and Institutional.

The County land use designations for the Hassler
Area/Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve include is
Public Recreation, Open Space, and Very Low Density
Residential (approximately or slightly less than 0.2
Dus/Ac) and Institutional. Lastly, the County land use
designations for the Devonshire Area include Medium
Low Density Residential (2.4 – 6.0 Dus/Ac) and is
Medium Density Residential (6.1-8.7 DUs/Ac).

General Plan Land Use Designation
This section outlines land use designations for land
within the city limit and the SOI. All new development
in the city and the SOI, as it annexes into San Carlos, must conform to these designations.

GENERAL PLAN 28
This General Plan defines various land use designations by their allowable uses and maximum densities and
intensities. The 19 different land use designations in this Element establish a range of densities and intensities of use in order to provide flexibility for development while still maintaining San Carlos’ existing character. The
development levels listed here do not create
entitlements to a specific number of dwelling units or
amount of floor area ratio. Densities on individual
parcels may be lower due to site constraints or other
City regulations. Table 3-2 (Revised as part of 2045
General Plan Reset) summarizes these designations and
provides acreage for each land use designation and
Figure 3-2 maps these designations.

The goals, policies and actions contained in this Element provide direction on how the various land use
designations should be developed to contribute to the
overall character of San Carlos.

The following describes the proposed land use
designations for the General Plan Update:
• Single-Family, 3 du/ac permits single-family homes at densities of up to three dwelling units per acre.

Designation Acres Percent
Single Family, 3 du/ac 161.02 158.3 5.7%
Single Family, 6 du/ac 1416.75 1,416.4 50.25% 50.6%
Multiple-Family, 15-20 du/ac 136.06 126.8 4.83% 4.5%
Multiple-Family, 46-59 du/ac 4.49 7.1 Less than 1%
Multiple-Family, 75-100 du/ac 50.88 42.1 1.8% 1.5%
Mixed Use, 30-40 du/ac 20.4 20.6 Less than 1%
Mixed Use, 38-50 du/ac 19.89 18.1 Less than 1%
Mixed Use, 75-100 du/ac 28.26 32.6 1% 1.2%
Mixed Use, 90-120 du/ac 34.29 43.1 1.22% 1.5%
Neighborhood Retail & Mixed
Use, 75-100 du/ac 24.32 6.1 Less than 1%
Neighborhood Retail 0.77 0.8 Less than 1%
Planned Industrial 306.68 307.1 10.88 11%
General Commercial – Industrial 118.32 118.7 4.2%
Public 13.47 13.6 Less than 1%
Park 145.51 143.3 5.16%
Less than 1%
Open Space 180.36 186.1 6.4% 6.7%
Open Space – Schools 70.98 71.0 2.52%
Airport 87.2 85.4 3.1%
Total1 2819.65 2.799 100%
TABLE 3-2 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT May exceed 100% due to rounding.

Source: MIG, 2022 (Revised October, 2024)
GENERAL PLAN 29
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 30
• Single-Family, 6 du/ac permits single-family homes
at densities of up to six dwelling units per acre.
• Multiple-Family, 15-20 du/ac permits multi-family
dwellings at densities of 15 to 20 dwelling units per
acre.
• Multiple-Family, 44-59 du/ac permits multi- family
dwellings at densities of 44 to 59 dwelling units per
acre.
• Multiple-Family, 75-100 du/ac permits multi-family
dwellings at densities of 75 to 100 dwelling units per
acre.
• Mixed Use, 30-40 du/ac permits both commercial and
multifamily residential uses at residential densities of 30-40 dwellings units per acre.
• Mixed Use, 38-50 du/ac permits both commercial and
multi-family residential uses atresidential densities of 38-50 dwellings units per acre.
• Mixed Use, 75-100 du/ac permits both commercial
and multi-family residential uses at residential
densities of 75-100 dwellings units per acre.
• Mixed Use, 90-120 du/ac permits both commercial
and multi-family residential uses at residential
densities of 90-120 dwellings units per acre.
• Neighborhood Retail/Mixed Use, 75-120 permits both
commercial and multi-family residential uses at
densities of 75 and up to 120 dwelling units per acre.

Neighborhood retail without a mixed-use component
is permitted under this designation.
• Neighborhood Retail permits resident-serving retail
and services.
• Planned Industrial permits research and
development, biotech, light industrial, flex,
warehousing and related uses.
• General Commercial/Industrial allows all retail,
service, office, research and development and
industrial uses. This designation offers maximum
flexibility to allow the market to determine the mixture of non-residential uses.
• Public permits city facilities, utilities, and other public and quasi-public uses.
• Park allows for active and passive public parks. Park lands are for outdoor and indoor recreation including
playing fields, playgrounds, community centers and
other appropriate recreational uses.
• Open Space applies to undeveloped park lands,
visually significant open lands, water areas and wildlife habitat. Land designated as open space is intended to remain undeveloped in the future. Trails, trail heads and agricultural uses such as 4H are
appropriate uses.
31 GENERAL PLAN
• Open Space/Schools applies to public and private
schools with a primary planned use of these sites to
remain a joint use for school and associated recreation purposes.
• Airport applies to the San Carlos Airport and allows
airport and aviation-related uses.
• County Land includes land outside the city limit, but within the SOI. All County Land is subject to
standards and regulations in the San Mateo County
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

GENERAL PLAN 32
What Does Density Look Like?
One of the functions of the land use designations is to establish maximum densities for residential and
mixed-use development. Residential densities are
typically described as the maximum number of
dwelling units per acre. The land use designations in
this General Plan allow forresidential densitiesranging from three dwelling units per acre to 120 dwelling
units per acre. To illustrate what development at
these densities looks like, photographs of residential
and mixed-use buildings at varying densities are
provided on this page to the left. It should be noted,
however, that building size and shape is constrained by height limits, setbacks, and open space requirements,
not density. The same size building might have a range
of density depending on the number of studios versus
3- to 4-bedroom units, for example.
33 GENERAL PLAN
San Carlos Economic Development Plan
The City of San Carlos has and will continue to
implement the City’s Economic Development Plan to
guide investments in economic initiatives. This plan is updated approximately every three years. The plan
focuses on enhancing the local business climate,
improving infrastructure, and fostering public/private
partnerships. It also includes land use
recommendations, targeting development in areas like
Downtown, El Camino Real, and the East Side. All
projects under the plan must align with the City’s
General Plan to ensure consistency.

The City developed the 2007 Economic Development
Plan to guide the investment in economic development
initiatives. The plan aims to enhance the business
climate of the city. Some recommendations in the Plan
call for the City to focus available funding on
infrastructure improvements to increase traffic capacity, attract large to mid plate retail, and improve
public/private partnerships. The Plan also includes
strategies to channel development in specific areas of
town. Land use recommendations of the Economic
Development Plan are incorporated in the Land Use
Map and goals, policies, and actions for Downtown, El
Camino Real, and the East Side area. The Plan is
reviewed and updated annually. All projects and
activities must be consistent with the adopted General
Plan.

Redevelopment Plan and Planning Areas
In accordance with California State Law, each
redevelopment agency has a geographically defined
“Project Area.” A portion of the property taxes from the properties within the Project Area goes to support the
activities of the Redevelopment Agency. These
redevelopment activities, with some limited exceptions
for housing funds, must also occur within the Project
FOCUS Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
The San Carlos General Plan was prepared with regional land use planning efforts in mind. One of these regional planning efforts is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Focus program.

The FOCUS program encourages infill development near transit in urban areas throughout the Bay Area. An area with a minimum size of 100 acres, near transit and that have the potential to increase housing and enhance the pedestrian environment are eligible to become a Priority Development Area (PDA). PDAs are eligible for planning grants and technical assistance from the regional agencies. The Railroad Area Corridor, near the Caltrain station along El Camino Real consisting of Planning Areas 1 and 2, is one of 11 designated PDAs in San Mateo County.

Housing Successor Agency
The City of San Carlos is the housing successor agency to the former San Carlos Redevelopment Agency. The majority of City’s housing assets were transferred from the former Agency when it dissolved pursuant to the Dissolution Act in 2012 (enacted by Assembly Bills X1 26 and subsequent legislation).
34 5

GENERAL PLAN
Area. In 1986, the Agency adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area. The Project Area is composed of approximately 450 acres of commercial and industrial land uses and is shown in Figure 3-3. Though no residential land uses were present in the Project Area
at the time it was adopted, some housing has subsequently been developed. The Plan presents the goals and objectives that will guide redevelopment and affordable housing implementation activities in the Project Area; the specific programs, projects and expenditures for the five-year term (2004-05 through 2008-09); an explanation of how the projects will eliminate blight in the Project Area; and an explanation of how the Agency’s affordable housing projects and expenditures will implement the low and moderate income housing requirements of the Law. All projects and activities must be consistent with the adopted
General Plan.

Pedestrian-oriented retail on Laurel Street.

East and West Side Specific Plans
Cities and counties in California often prepare "specific plans" to establish detailed policies and standards for a particular geographic area. Prior to the adoption of this General Plan, San Carlos had two specific plans: the West Side Specific Plan and the 1991 East Side Specific Plan. During the General Plan Update process, the contents of these specific plans were reviewed and incorporated into the General Plan as appropriate. This General Plan also includes new policies for these areas. The West Side Specific Plan (which addressed current Planning Areas 1-3) and the East Side Specific Plan (which addressed current portions of Planning Areas 2-3 and all of Areas 4-9) have been officially "retired" from use as City policy documents. This General Plan replaces these specific plans as the policy document to guide growth, conservation and enhancement in these two important areas of San Carlos.

Note: In 2022, the City initiated the development of two specific plans, one in the northeast area and one in the downtown; both of which will be adopted in 2025.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 35
GENERAL PLAN 36
Goals, Policies and Actions
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-1.2 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.

Denotes synergy
with Climate
Action Plan
The Guiding Principles for the Land Use Element
establish a framework for the basic intent of this Element and are a broad statement of overall community value
relating to land use in San Carlos. The Guiding Principles are to:

Provide for land use patterns that promote
economic,social and environmentalsustainability
and enhance the livability and high quality of life
for residents, workers and visitors of San Carlos.

Increase community connections throughout San
Carlos through a diversity of measures both
physical and social.

Protect, preserve and enhance natural resources.

Enhance a unique sense of place and community
character with excellent design.

Provide for a vibrant, diverse and sustainable
economythat provides a range of employment and
generates sufficient revenue to maintain high
quality Cityservices.

POLICIES
Note: The Climate Action
Plan adopted in 2009
was replaced by a new
Climate Mitigation and
Adaptation Plan (CMAP)
adopted on September
27, 2021 (Resolution No.
2021 – 094). The CMAP
calls for reducing
emissions 40 percent
below 1990 levels by
2030 and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by
2050.
37 GENERAL PLAN
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.

POLICY LU-1.5 Support land use patterns in the
TOD corridor that will attract and
serve riders of public transit.

POLICY LU-1.6 Consider reduced parking
requirements for multi-family
residential and mixed-use projects
within the TOD corridor.

POLICY LU-1.7 Encourage mitigation of parking
conflicts between different land
uses.

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-1.9 To the extent possible, retain the
channels, floodplains, riparian
corridors (including suitable setbacks
from top of bank) and closely associated
upland areas of Cordilleras, Brittan and
Pulgas Creeks and their tributaries as
significant open space areas. These
areas should be maintained in their
natural state to function as appropriate
open space areas, greenbelt and to
support a riparian habitat.

POLICY LU-1.10 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.

POLICY LU-1.11 Preserve existing open space by
supporting urban infill.

GENERAL PLAN 38
POLICY LU-1.12 Promote the development of publicly
accessible urban trails throughout
the city to provide access to the
natural Environment and facilitate
nonmotorized transportation options.

POLICY LU-1.13 Permit shared parking arrangements
for commercial and industrial uses
in which a single parking area serves
different uses that generate peak
parking demand at different hours of
the day.

POLICY LU-1.14 Support creative, innovative and
flexible approaches to parking
standards and the provision of
parking facilities.

POLICY LU-1.15 Measures of impact to traffic from
development may include Level of
Service (LOS), Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), pedestrian delay,
or other measures.

ACTION LU-1.1 Continue to evaluate the Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance to
encourage mode shift to reduce
vehicular trip generation from new
development.Amend the Zoning
Ordinance to create a Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance
that contains strategies to enhance travel
patterns and to reduce vehicular trip
generation from new development by
20 percent.

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.

ACTION LU-1.3 Adopt and regularly maintain a
Climate Action Plan.

ACTION LU-1.4 Consider the adoption of programs to
incentivize the establishment of green
businesses.

AC TIONS
39 ACTION LU-1.5 Consider adoption of a lighting
ordinance that restricts the type,
intensity, and placement of outdoor
lighting fixtures in development. New
lighting should illuminate properties
appropriately and help keep them safe
and secure but shall not cause glare or
spillover into surrounding properties
or negatively affect the night sky.

ACTION LU-1.6 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to
address methods to increase shade
in surface parking lots, require a
standard for tree coverage in new
development and promote water
efficient landscaping.

ACTION LU-1.7 Encourage redevelopment of current
u r b a n pathways and as
appropriate reacquire urban
pathways ceded to residents/owners.

ACTION LU-1.8 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to
address the new multiple family and
mixed-use designations as part of the
2023 Focused General Plan Update.

GOAL
LU-2
Preserve and strengthen Downtown as the
civic, cultural and social heart of the city.

POLICY LU-2.1 The downtown is generally defined as
Laurel Street from Holly Street to
Arroyo Street, including properties
west to Walnut Street and the Civic
Center.

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.

POLICIES
40 POLICY LU-2.4 Encourage uses that enhance the
vitality of Laurel Street south of the
Down- town area.

POLICY LU-2.5 Maintain a mixture of businesses that
support the economic viability of
Downtown.

POLICY LU-2.6 Support active ground floor uses such
as retail, restaurants and services and,
on Laurel Street between Holly Street
and Eaton Avenue, limit residential
uses to upper floors.

POLICY LU-2.7 Encourage residential and other uses
in the Downtown Laurel Street area
that contribute to the Downtown’s
vibrancy and activity.

POLICY LU-2.8 Maintain all alleys for public use.

Permit exceptions only if doing so will
result in a demonstrably superior
development project.

POLICY LU-2.9 Continue to allow shared parking
between commercial and residential
uses.

POLICY LU-2.10 Improve connections between El Camino
Real, Old County Road, Industrial Road
and Laurel Street to attract additional
visitors into the Down- town.

POLICY LU-2.11 Ensure convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to Downtown from surrounding
areas and the TOD corridor.

POLICY LU-2.12 Provide for bicycle and pedestrian
safety Downtown.

POLICY LU-2.13 Maintain Downtown and Burton Park as
the city’s central gathering places.

POLICY LU-2.14 Continue to support Downtown
community events and civic activities.

POLICY LU-2.15 Provide for and encourage the
development of parks and public
gathering places in and near Downtown.

POLICY LU-2.16 Ensure adequate accessibility to the
Downtown, which may include
expanding automobile parking, bicycle
parking and public transit.
41 39
POLICY LU-2.17 Within the Downtown, encourage the
private assemblage of land parcels.

POLICY LU-2.18 Consider innovative and flexible
approaches to parking in the Downtown
area.

POLICY LU-2.19 Encourage opportunities for pedestrian
linkages from the parking plazas to the
streets.

POLICY LU-2.20 Facilitate expansion of public parking in conjunction with the redevelopment of
consolidated parcels.

ACTION LU-2.1 Review the Zoning Ordinance to ensure
standards support a vibrant and diverse
Downtown.

ACTION LU-2.2 Amend the Zoning Ordinance as necessary
to maintain and enhance the character of
Laurel Street.

ACTION LU-2.3 Establish a strategy to attract quality
retail establishments and mixed-use
residential development to Downtown
San Carlos.

ACTION LU-2.4 Develop a Civic Center Area Master
Plan to program long term uses in the
area, such as establishing spaces for
community events, programs and
gathering, which is consistent and
complementary to the Parks Master
Plan.

ACTION LU-2.5 Work with the Chamber of Commerce
and other business organizations to
enhance the success of Downtown
businesses.

ACTION LU-2.6 Review Downtown parking standards
and amend as necessary to encourage
and support a pedestrian-oriented
environment while minimizing impacts
on adjacent neighborhoods.

AC TIONS
42 ACTION LU-2.7 Evaluate options to increase safe and
convenient bicycle access and parking
in the Downtown area.

ACTION LU-2.8 Study existing alleys within the
Downtown area to define the use of the
alley prior to consideration of removal.

ACTION LU-2.9 Examine incentives for private
assemblage of parcels within the
Downtown area.

ACTION LU-2.10 Examine the viability of converting the
600, 700 and/or 800 blocks of Laurel
Street to a more pedestrian-friendly
environment.

San Carlos Wine and Art Faire
GOAL
LU-3
Promote connectivity and provide retail
and services within walking distance of
homes and employment areas.

POLICY LU-3.1 Encourage the establishment of
“Neighborhood Hubs” within existing
residential neighborhoods.

POLICY LU-3.2 Require land use designation and
zoning amendments for approval of
each new “Neighborhood Hub”
proposal.

POLICY LU-3.3 Encourage neighborhood-serving smallscale retail and service uses that promote community health,
interaction and socialization of
neighbor- hoods within Neighborhood
Hubs such as small stores selling fresh
and

POLICIES
43 locally grown produce and basic daily
goods, cafés and delicatessens.

POLICY LU-3.4 Prohibit uses within Neighborhood
Hubs that would adversely impact
adjacent properties.

POLICY LU-3.5 Design Neighborhood Hubs for easy
access by bicyclists and pedestrians.

POLICY LU-3.6 Locate Neighborhood Hubs in areas
½-mile or greater from existing
neighborhood-serving retail and/or
another Neighborhood Hub.

POLICY LU-3.7 Require the design of Neighborhood
Hub structures to complement the
residential character of its immediate
surroundings.

POLICY LU-3.8 Require neighborhood design to
provide a sense of place, promote
casual interaction and enhance overall
wellbeing.

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
bulbouts, curb cuts, street furniture
and trees and traffic-calming measures
which allow
Neighborhood Hubs
This Land Use Element includes policies encouraging the development of “Neighborhood Hubs.” Neighborhood Hubs are envisioned as nodes or focal points that offer neighborhoodserving retail and amenities within a reasonable walking distance from adjoining residential areas. These hubs would increase the accessibility of goods and services within existing residential neighbor- hoods, particularly for the benefit of senior citizens and those with limited mobility. Development within Neighborhood Hubs uses would be subject to clearrestrictions to ensure that new commercial development is compatible with surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood Hubs are only
envisioned in the area beyond a ½-mile radius from the
Downtown, west of El Camino Real. To establish a Neighborhood Hub, a project applicant would need to obtain approval of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments.
44 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.

POLICY LU-3.12 Increase the ability for workers in the
East Side to walk or ride a bike to retail
and service uses by supporting
ancillary uses, such as retail and
restaurants, in industrial areas.

POLICY LU-3.13 Provide for safe and convenient
pedestrian and bicycle connections
between residential and commercial
areas throughout San Carlos.

POLICY LU-3.14 Require sidewalks, or deferred
improvement agreements, for all
new and substantially renovated
commercial properties on the East Side.

ACTION LU-3.1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to
establish a Neighborhood Hubs
overlay district and standards for
structures and uses located within
Neighborhood Hubs. Ensure that any
potential adverse impacts to
neighboring properties are mitigated.

ACTION LU-3.2 Consider development of a Complete
Streets policy, setting performance
standards and prioritizing
implementation steps.

ACTION LU-3.3 Work with SamTrans and other public
agencies to provide a public mass
transit stop accessible to every home
and business in San Carlos.

ACTION LU-3.4 Encourage prominent and secure onsite
bicycle parking at retail and service
uses.

ACTIONS
45 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-4.2 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 taxpayer 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.

POLICIES
46 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
utilizing the Planned Community
PC zone 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
pro- visions 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.

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-4.5 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.
47 POLICY LU-4.6 Parcels proposed for annexation to the City shall be prezoned.
a. Undeveloped Residential Parcels.

Parcels with development potential of
five or more lots shall be zoned to
Planned Development with minimum
RS-3 development standards
Community (with minimum R-1-LD
Development Standards) prior to
approval of a Tentative Subdivision
Map.

Parcels with development potential of
less than five lots shall be prezoned RS3.
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.Other parcels proposed for
annexation shall be prezoned R-1-LD
Low- Density, Single-Family Residential
District.

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.
48 POLICY LU-4.9 An environmental analysis under the
provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and a fiscal
impact analysis shall be conducted.

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.

The Drake Building at El Camino Real and San Carlos Avenue GOAL
LU-5
Support and maintain land uses that contribute to a vibrant and resilient local economy and support the fiscal well being
of the City.

POLICY LU-5.1 Maintain a diversity of land uses while
achieving the desired transportation
level of service.

POLICY LU-5.2 Implement the City’s adopted
Economic Development Plan, which is
updated annually as it relates to
supporting the local economy.

POLICY LU-5.3 Support and encourage businesses and
land uses that contribute to the City’s
financial viability.

AC TIONS

POLICIES
49 POLICY LU-5.4 Support independent local
businesses that serve city residents
and visitors that contribute to San
Carlos’ character.

POLICY LU-5.5 Support organizations that offer
lifelong education and workforcetraining geared to emerging economic sectors.

POLICY LU-5.6 Strive for a balanced ratio of jobs and
housing units.

POLICY LU-5.7 Support high-wage industries that
provide quality jobs for workers at all
education levels.

POLICY LU-5.8 Encourage retail uses along Laurel
Street south of the Downtown to
extend and increase the area’s
economic vitality and support
surrounding uses.

POLICY LU-5.9 Encourage new commercial
development on parcels fronting
Highway 101 to expand the City’s tax
base and to be of high-quality design.

POLICY LU-5.10 Work with the appropriate business
community organizations to identify
common goals for strengthening the
economy in the city.

POLICY LU-5.11 Continue to require developers to pay
their fair share of the capital cost of
public facilities through appropriate
development impact and utility
connection fees.

POLICY LU-5.12 Encourage expediting new business
registration applications.

POLICY LU-5.13 Consider use of multiple level parking
facilities to provide increased space
where available land is limited.

POLICY LU-5.14 Where feasible, ensure that no net loss
occurs in the availability of public
parking facilities as a result of new
development.

POLICY LU-5.15 Promote economic revitalization on
underutilized parcels designated for
higher intensity land uses.
50 POLICY LU-5.16 Identify, develop, and implement
Redevelopment Agency sponsored
programs and other public/private
partnership developments to help
facilitate economic development.

POLICY LU-5.17 Encourage the development as well as
improvements to the ingress and egress
on the following public parking
lotsplazas: South Plaza, Williams Plaza,
Wheeler Plaza and Clark Plaza.

ACTION LU-5.1 Continue to review, update and
implement the Economic Development
Plan as needed to ensure that the City’s
economic development strategies
reflect current market conditions and
future projections.

ACTION LU-5.2 Continually monitor the supply of
land available for commercial
development to support the City’s
economic development goals.

ACTION LU-5.3 Review impact fees for new
development to ensure that fees are
appropriate to contribute to the cost of
providing public facilities and services.

ACTION LU-5.4 Ensure that new development is not a
financial burden on municipal service
levels by evaluating the fiscal impact of
all new projects and establishing
preferences for projects that generate
sufficient revenue to offset increased
operation and maintenance costs,
consistent with other local, state and
federal regulations.

ACTION LU-5.5 Routinely review the jobs to housing
balance and make recommendations to
correct imbalances.

ACT I ONS
51 ACTION LU-5.6 Study ways for San Carlos to actively
attract and retain businesses. Potential
methods may include:
a. Expediting permit approvals.
b. Providing incentives for property
maintenance.
c. Providing financial and nonfinancial incentives for businesses to remain in the city.

Commercial development in East Side area
POLICY LU-6.1 Support commercial/ industrial
activity and businesses on the East Side.

POLICY LU-6.2 Prohibit the conversion of property
designated for industrial/commercial
land on the East Side to nonindustrial/commercial uses. a. Ensure proposed new uses in the
East Side do not introduce land use
conflicts that would adversely
impact industrial/commercial
activities.

POLICIES
GOAL
LU-6
Strengthen the economic vitality of the
East Side of the city by encouraging a
diversity of commercial uses while
protecting and preserving existing
industrial uses.
52 POLICY LU-6.3 Support the expansion of key growth
industries while maintaining the
overall diversity of land uses within
East Side employment areas.

POLICY LU-6.4 Encourage the development of the
Landmark sites at the intersection of
Industrial Road and Holly Street.

POLICY LU-6.5 Work with San Mateo County to
maintain and enhance the San Carlos
Air- port general aviation facility as an
eco- nomically significant facility of
countywide importance.

POLICY LU-6.6 Encourage new development on the
East Side to feature high quality
architecture that reinforces the
character of the area.

POLICY LU-6.7 Maintain and strengthen industrial
uses in the inner core of the East Side
area.

POLICY LU-6.8 Strongly discourage the land
subdivision of large, existing industrial
parcels in the East Side area.

ACTION LU-6.1 Study ways for San Carlos to actively
attract and retain commercial/
industrial uses on the East Side.

Potential methods may include:
a. Expediting permit approvals.
b. Providing incentives for property
maintenance.
c. Providing financial and nonfinancial incentives for commercial/industrial businesses to
remain in the city.

ACTION LU-6.2 Consider providing incentives where
appropriate, such as an increased floor
area ratio to large-scale industrial
development projects that assemble
parcels totaling at least 1 acre in area.

ACTION LU-6.3 Create and implement an ongoing
monitoring system to track economic
vitality, identify changing conditions
and respond rapidly to new economic
development opportunities.

ACTIONS
53 ACTION LU-6.4 Amend the Zoning Ordinance and
develop criteria for the evaluation of
new commercial/ industrial
condominiums and condominium
conversions.

ACTION LU-6.5 Continue to implement the East Side
Innovation District Vision Plan
adopted on October 25, 2021
(Resolution 2021-107).

Future Development
This section quantifies the growth that is likely to occur under this General Plan.

Residential Growth
The majority of new housing in San Carlos is expected
on infill parcels near Downtown, along the El Camino
Real corridor and along Old County Road between
Holly Street and Terminal Avenue and along East San
Carlos Avenue. These units will mostly be multiple
family residences, such as apartments, townhouses, or
condominiums. New single-familydetached
residences will likely occur on vacant parcels, as
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and as rebuilt or
remodeled homes in existing single-family
neighborhoods.

An estimate of total housing units, population, and
jobs in San Carlos by 204530 is shown in Table 3-3.

These projections assume densities that are probable
given allowable densities, economic forces and likely
development patterns. The General Plan has the
potential to result in approximately 8,060 4,900
additional residential units to be built within San Carlos’ city limit between 202409-2045.31
Existing
202408
Increase
By 20302045
Total
20302045
Housing Units 12,700 12,318 8,060 4,900 20,770 17,218
Population 29,350 28,857 15,620 3,446 44,510 32,303
Jobs 28,930 19,288 18,010 9,165 46,950 28,453
Source: Department of Finance, Economics Research Associates and DC&E.

Housing and Population Updated: 2022, City of San Carlos, Department of Finance, and MIG.

PlaceWorks, 2024.

Non-Residential Growth
The General Plan will also accommodate growth in
commercial, office, mixed use, research and
development, and industrial land uses. Table 3-4 shows
the projected gross square footage increase change in
commercial, office, mixed use, research and
development, and industrial uses from 2024 to 2045 2008 to 2030 for this General Plan. Most of the commercial
office growth is expected to occur in the Downtown area and
TABLE 3-3 HOUSING, POPULATION AND JOB

GROWTH UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN
54 along El Camino Real, Old County Road, Brit- tan
Avenue and Industrial Road. Most of the office
growth is expected in the Downtown and Northeast
areas. Industrial Research and development growth
would be primarily located limited to the East Side
area of San Carlos east of El Camino Real.

Community Character and Urban
Design
This section includes an overview of San Carlos’ existing urban design characteristics. It also includes goals, policies and actions to guide new development as the city continues to evolve over time. By examining the built environment in San Carlos, one -can better understand the ways in
which the city has developed as well as the opportunities that are present to guide future development. This
understanding will help direct future improvements to
the city’s character and built form.

City Identity
San Carlos is a community with a strong sense of place
and a distinct hometown feel. These characteristics are due in part to the mixture of uses in the city – the
residential neighborhoods, commercial districts,
industrial areas and parks and open space. All of these areas possess their own unique identities but also
interact in ways that make San Carlos a vibrant and
dynamic place to live, work and visit.

Major Key District Characteristics Developed
Areas in San Carlos
The city has been divided into a series of five geographic areas because each area has a unique character and a
distinctive land u s e pattern. These areas, illustrated in Figure 3-43, include the major developed areas in San
Carlos as described below.

TABLE 3-4 COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH

UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN
Existing
Conditions
20240
Projected
Growth
2045
General
Plan
2030
Percent
Change
202408-
204530
Commercial* 772,800
2,084,557
959,500
2,808,587 24 6%
Office 1,462,500
904,423
1,806,200
1,476,429 24 39%
Research &
Development 5,647,900 10,576,000 87%
Industrial 4,580,800
6,192,078
5,361,800
8,333,255 17 26%
* Gross square footage.

Source: PlaceWorks, 2024. Department of Finance, Economics Research Associates and DC&E.
53 FIGURE 3-4
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 56
Downtown and Historic Downtown Core Area
Downtown is defined as Laurel Street from Holly Street
to Arroyo Street including properties west to Walnut
Street and the Civic Center. The historic Downtown
Core Area is centered at the 1100 and 1200 blocks of San Carlos Avenue and the 600, 700 and 800 blocks of Laurel Street. Laurel Street is a pleasant pedestrian
environment with a grid street pattern, pedestrian
amenities and attractive landscaping. Laurel Street Park is centrally located in the Downtown area and offers
people a place to gather and visit. The street width
supports a pedestrian environment and is in scale with
the surrounding buildings. The alley be- tween Laurel
Street and El Camino Real minimizes curb cuts along
Laurel Street and allows service vehicles to access
businesses from the rear of the buildings.

Buildings of varying heights, typically one to two
stories, with traditional storefronts are generally built to the sidewalk and address the street. The picturesque
Downtown is an important visual resource for residents, workers and visitors in San Carlos.

Laurel Street (South of Arroyo Street)
Laurel Street, south of Arroyo Street to Eaton Avenue,
differs from the Downtown. Although the buildings are
of similar height, one to two stories, storefronts along this portion of Laurel Street are broken up by mixed-use residential and residential buildings. Store- fronts are mostly active along the street with the presence of
ground floor retail, however the residential units
interspersed along the street interrupt the continuity of these active uses. As in the Downtown portion of Laurel Street, an almost continuous alley be- tween Laurel
Street and El Camino Real reduces curb cuts along
Laurel Street and provides access for service vehicles at the rear of buildings. Parking is mostly limited to
parallel and diagonal parking along Laurel Street,
though there are a few parking lots behind buildings
and fronting Laurel Street.

Development on the east side of Laurel Street, between
Belmont Avenue and White Oak Way, is oriented
towards El Camino Real. Key building facades fronting
Laurel Street have no windows or entrances which
creates a block of blank walls with little visual interest. 3 LAND USE ELEMENT
57 GENERAL PLAN
South Laurel Street has limited spaces to gather and has no public open space such as a plaza or pocket park.

Trees and landscaping are intermittent along this
portion of the street. The corridor has few curb cuts and a relatively narrow street which helps create a
pedestrian environment. However, more active street
fronts and street amenities such as benches could
enhance the walkability of the area. This area includes many important community, business and personal
support services and convenience uses. Uses include
retail, restaurants and offices as well as multi-family residential uses.

El Camino Real
The El Camino Real corridor is a linear commercial area with a diverse range of uses including auto- related
businesses, lodging, restaurants and miscellaneous
small businesses. Although it is a regional transit
corridor serving the San Mateo Peninsula, El Camino
Real is largely automobile oriented. The visual quality of the area is dominated by automobiles and businesses
catering to automobile drivers. Parking lots, large signs and single-story buildings predominately define the
visual character of the corridor, al- though there are a few older, multi-store buildings
built to the sidewalk. The train tracks also run parallel to El Camino and the majority of the land between the
tracks and the road is vacant. The elevated railroad
tracks present a physical barrier and obstruct views on the east side of El Camino Real. Landscaping is minimal and there are few pedestrian amenities along the
corridor. However, recent development activity on El
Camino Real demonstrates the potential for this
corridor as a transit-orientedmulti-modal area suitable for increased residential and mixed-use development.

The Grand Boulevard Initiative, which is a collaboration of other cities and agencies in San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties, serves to guide development on El
Camino Real to improve mobility along the corridor.

East Side Area
The East Side area includes 600 acres of land in the
eastern portion of the city. The area is defined by the city limit to the north, east and south and the railroad tracks to the west. Initially, this area was the site of small industrial firms including manufacturing, repair- ing,
building supply uses, service businesses and housing
which arose after World War II. In the 1990s, the uses in the East Side area began to transition and new uses
including research and development space, computer
hardware and software, telecommunications, medical
research and biotechnology firms moved to the area,
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 58
reflecting San Carlos’ location in the northern portion of Silicon Valley. Many of the businesses were established along American, Central and Washington Streets.

Additional businesses, such as Lucky Grocery Store,
Home Depot and Hollywood Video later developed
along the western edge of the East Side area.

The East Side area is bisected by Highway 101. The area east of Highway 101 includes the San Carlos Air- port,
SamTrans bus storage facility, the Hiller Aviation
Museum, two-story office buildings, limited freewayoriented lodging and restaurant buildings and a solid waste transfer station and recycling facility. Large
parking areas separate uses. The automobile is the
dominant mode of transportation in the area.

Since 2015, the City of San Carlos has experienced an
unprecedented amount of private sector investment,
including business and employment growth in the life
sciences and biotechnology sectors in the area of East
Side defined by Holly Street, Brittan Avenue, Old
County Road, and Highway 101. To plan for these
changes, the City Council adopted the East Side
Innovation District Vision Plan in October 2021. A
Specific Plan is currently underway for the San Carlos
Northeast Area, near the border of Belmont and the City of San Carlos.

Harbor Industrial Area
The Harbor Industrial area (HIA), located between the
city limit to the north, Highway 101 to the east, Old
County Road to the west and as far south as Holly Street on the eastern edge, is a subarea within the East Side
area (Figure 3-34). This subarea comprises large
manufacturing businesses, biotechnical and biomedical
firms and light and heavy industrial uses. The majority of the area (from Belmont Creek to north of Holly Street) was annexed in 1997 after a petition for annexation was received from over 80 percent of the property owners in the HIA. The balance of the HIA to the north remains
unincorporated under a compromise known as “ABC”
reached between the Cities of San Carlos and Belmont
and the HIA property owners in 1997. The ABC
compromise requires San Carlos or Belmont to meet
certain conditions in order to annex the remaining
unincorporated portions of the HIA. The portion of the
HIA that was annexed to San Carlos conforms to both
County and City industrial zoning regulations. Existing land use regulations strongly discourage housing,
commercial, retail and non- industrial uses in this area.

San Carlos Airport
The East Side area is the site of the 160-acre San Carlos Airport, located east of Highway 101, along the bay
shoreline. The San Carlos Airport is located on land
owned by the County of San Mateo and managed by the
County Public Works Department. Private planes are
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
59 GENERAL PLAN
the primary users of the airport and 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 certain activities such as student training are voluntarily limited to daytime to meet noise abatement
requirements. The airport houses around 500 aircraft
and is the place of business for over 25 aviation-related businesses. Other airport services include emergency
response functions such as Air-Ambulance, Medivac
flights and law enforcement patrols.

The San Carlos Airport is also the home of the Hiller
Aviation Museum. The museum was founded by
helicopter pioneer Stanley Hiller Jr. in 1998. The
museum includes a large collection of aviation history
spanning the past 30 years and is an exciting destination for adults and children.

Residential Neighborhoods East of El Camino Real
There are two residential neighborhoods in the East Side area, between Old County Road and Industrial Road,
both north and south of Holly Street. The
neighborhoods are predominantly comprised of one- or
two-story single-family homes set back from the narrow
residential streets. These neighborhoods have abundant
street trees and a strong sense of neighborhood.

Laureola Park is a major focal point of one of the
residential neighborhoods.

Residential Neighborhoods West of El Camino Real
The character of residential neighborhoods in San
Carlos is diverse. Adjacent to Downtown and Laurel
Street are older residential areas with traditional grid street patterns, higher densities, historic homes and a mixture of housing types. Relatively old and
established street trees, pre-World War II buildings and attractive streetscapes create the visual character in this neighborhood.

Residential areas on the south end of the city (adjacent to Redwood City) are characterized by one- and twostory single-family homes with tree-lined streets.

Homes are set back from an elongated, suburban street
grid pattern and are a mix of one and two stories.

The western portions of San Carlos, west of Alameda de
las Pulgas, contain residential neighborhoods that are
integrated into picturesque and often dramatic hill- side terrain. In these areas, streets follow the contours of the hills, with many multi-story hillside homes appearing as single-story residences from the street. The far western portion of the city, near Brittan and Crest- view
Avenues, features single-family homes and
condominiums with commanding views of the San
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 60
Francisco Bay and the East Bay. Much of the
development of this far western portion of the city
occurred by clustering residential sites and large areas of private open space which add to its rural character.

Devonshire Canyon
Located in the western part of the city, Devonshire
Canyon is unincorporated land under the jurisdiction of San Mateo County, surrounded on all sides by San
Carlos. Devonshire Canyon is characterized by singlefamily homes located within exceptionally scenic hilly terrain. Most houses are located in flatter canyon floor areas, with the steeper areas largely but not completely undeveloped. Roads in Devonshire Canyon are
extremely narrow and winding and generally do not
have sidewalks. Upper branches of Pulgas Creek are
also located in this area and provide scenic riparian
corridors.

Commercial/Residential Interfaces
A key goal of the Land Use Element is to ensure that
new development is designed to be sensitive to adjacent uses, particularly residential neighborhoods. One way
to achieve this goal is to design the sides of new building projects that front residential neighborhoods to be
compatible with the scale and character of existing wellestablished neighborhoods in accordance with the City’s Objective Design Standards.

The illustration below shows how a conceptual
downtown mixed-use project could be designed to be
compatible with an adjacent single-family
neighborhood. In this example, retail uses, upper level residential flats and the majority of the building mass are fronting the Downtown street. The portion of the
building adjacent to single-family homes on the
residential street features lower density, lower heights and architectural details that are more residential in
character. Portions of the building fronting single-family homes could also feature rowhouse style units with
stoops and individual entries fronting the residential
street.

Views
San Carlos has varied topography which ranges from
land at sea level to the hilly western portion of the city with elevations up to 900 feet. The hillsides and
ridgelines that comprise the city’s diverse landscape
provide a rich array of scenic resources and afford
numerous vantage points from which scenic vistas can
be enjoyed.

Views of the surrounding open space and San Francisco Bay can be accessed in many areas west of Alameda de las Pulgas, including City parks and open
space and existing residential neighborhoods.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
61 GENERAL PLAN
Gateways
Creating aesthetically pleasing gateways is an
important component of land use planning and
community design that contributes to a city’s character and sense of place. Gateways are locations that
announce to a visitor or resident that they are entering the city or a unique neighborhood within the city.

Features associated with gateways can include signs,
structural elements such as towers or fences or walls,
landscaping, architecturally significant buildings and
natural features such as a row of trees. Gateways often feature Landmark structures. A Landmark is an element
by which people orient themselves and can help create
a unique identity for an area. Examples of visual
landmarks include statues, major works of public art,
historic buildings, water towers, significant landscaping or landforms and other easily identifiable features.

Gateways in San Carlos have been classified into two
categories: primary and secondary. Primary gateways
are the major regional entry points into the city on
roadways or transportation routes. Secondary
gateways are more local entry points into the city from nearby cities including Belmont and Redwood City. The
best example of a primary gateway is at San Carlos
Avenue and El Camino Real. This gateway is
characterized by the Caltrain transit hub and historic
Train Depot and the architecturally unique and historic Drake Building. This gateway has a prominent
architectural signage feature that indicates the entrance to Downtown San Carlos. Combined, these features
give the visitor a sense of arrival into Downtown.

However, the majority of primary and secondary
gateways do little to announce arrival to a unique area.

Holly Street at US Highway 101 and Industrial Road is
the primary access route from Highway 101 to San
Carlos.

High traffic volumes and a mixture of land uses,
including residential, industrial and commercial, do not effectively announce to visitors their entrance to San
Carlos even though a small monument feature is
installed. The primary and secondary gateways are
identified in Table 3-5. The location of each gateway is shown in Figure 3-54.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 62
``````Map ID Gateway
Primary Gateways
1 Holly Street east of El Camino Real
2 San Carlos Avenue at El Camino Real
3 North El Camino Real
4 South El Camino Real
5 Brittan Avenue at Highway 101
Secondary Gateways
6 Industrial Road at the San Carlos/Redwood City city limit 7 Industrial Road at the San Carlos/Belmont city limit
8 North Alameda de las Pulgas
9 South Alameda de las Pulgas
10 North Crestview Drive
11 South Crestview Drive
Hillside residential development
TABLE 3-5 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY GATEWAYS IN

SAN CARLOS
FIGURE 3-5
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 64
Form-Based Codes and the Urban to Rural Transect
Action 8.1 calls for San Carlos to prepare a form-based code as a tool to implement urban design-related policies in this General Plan.

Form- based codes are different from conventional zoning ordinances in that they focus primarily on the physical form and character of development and de-emphasize use regulations. Form-based codes also include development standards that graphically illustrate required massing and placement of buildings. Form-based codes are an effective tool to create mixed-use, walkable and compact development that is sensitive to existing development and supports a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented community.

Form-based codes are typically based upon an urban planning concept known as the rural-to-urban transect (“transect”). At its essence, the transect concept features a series of zones transitioning from natural open space to a dense urban core. The transect concept maintains that only certain types of streets, building types, building forms and civic spaces are appropriate in each zone. In San Carlos, distinct transect zones might range from a Downtown zone (most dense) to low density single-family and open space zones (least dense). The diagram below illustrates the concept of the transect.

Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2009
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
65 GENERAL PLAN
Goals, Policies and Actions
These goals, policies and actions address the visual
appearance and character of the built environment and
are intended to maintain and enhance San Carlos’ sense
of place and the quality of life of its residents. These urban design principles should be applied to individual buildings and to larger development projects, to new
development as well as the redevelopment of existing
areas.

Laurel Street with hillside homes in background
GOAL
LU-7
Promote the community character of San
Carlos, including the unique village character
of Downtown.

POLICY LU-7.1 Support development and
improvements to infrastructure that
increase physical and social
connections between the
neighborhoods of the city.

POLICY LU-7.2 Actively encourages and promote a
balanced development pattern that
provides opportunities for
community connections and social
interaction.

POLICY LU-7.3 Provide for a downtown scale of
development that is compatible with
San Carlos’ unique village character.

POLICIES
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 66
POLICY LU-7.4 Respect the visual prominence of
important city landmarks, gateways
and destinations.

POLICY LU-7.5 Consider the inclusion of public art as
part of development projects.

POLICY LU-7.6 Encourage and support meaningful
public involvement in San Carlos City
government where active
nongovernmental organizations can
thrive.

POLICY LU-7.7 Support the arts and encourage the
development of cultural amenities that
may enrich San Carlos.

ACTION LU-7.1 Continue to implement the City's
adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan adopted on June 9th, 2020
and update the Master Plan as
needed. Prepare a community study
to seek new ways to enhance
walkability and connect all areas of
the community. The current Bicycle
Transportation Plan could be
expanded to be a Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.

ACTION LU-7.2 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to
address the importance of public and
private open space opportunities as
part of all new development review,
considering scale, size, location and
context of the development.

ACTION LU-7.3 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to
establish a zoning district for existing
parks and open space lands and amend
the zoning map accordingly.

ACTION LU-7.4 Study methods to establish diverse,
reliable and stable funding sources for
public art.

ACTION LU-7.5 Encourage new and existing
commercial development to incorporate
accessible roof gardens, public plazas,
public courtyards and passageways,
landscaping, public art and other
desired public amenities beyond those
specified during the normal City
review process.

ACT I ONS
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
67 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
LU-8
Ensure excellence in all development design.

POLICY LU-8.1 Require all development to feature
high quality design that enhances the
visual character of San Carlos.

POLICY LU-8.2 Ensure that new development
sensitively transitions to the character
of adjacent structures and the
immediate neighborhood.

POLICY LU-8.3 Encourage design features and
amenities in new development and
redevelopment, including, but not
limited to:
a. Interconnected street layout.
b. Clustering of buildings.
c. Landscaping on each lot.
d. Visual buffers.
e. Facilitation of pedestrian activity.
f. Distinctiveness and variety in
architectural design.

POLICY LU-8.4 Promote pedestrian-scaled design
through site planning, building design,
finish details and landscaping for all
types of development by requiring
height and locational transitions between buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of
surrounding uses and structures,
especially residential.

POLICY LU-8.5 Optimize architectural quality by
encouraging the use of quality
materials, particularly as accents and
authentic detailing, such as balconies
and window trims.

POLICIES
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 68
POLICY LU-8.6 Encourage new commercial
development to provide outdoor
areas and landscaping and tree
canopy to enhance the surroundings.

POLICY LU-8.7 Require new residential development
to provide outdoor areas and
landscaping or native vegetation, or
tree canopy to enhance the
surroundings.

POLICY LU-8.8 Encourage design of convenient
pedestrian walkways with shade and
minimal tripping hazards, preferably
with landscape buffers between
roadways and walkways.

POLICY LU-8.9 Encourage the design of attractive
outdoor pedestrian spaces that
encourage impromptu public
gathering places with features such as
plazas, interior walkways and paseos,
ornamental gates, trellises, lighting,
trees and landscaping, seating and
fountains.

POLICY LU-8.10 On all sides of buildings, require the
incorporation of quality architectural
design elements for all building façades and
stepping back upper floors in order to reduce
bulk and mass and to break up monotonous wall
lines.

POLICY LU-8.11 Discourage abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between low-rise to mid-rise
buildings should be achieved by using the lowrise buildings at the edge of the project site.

Consider the relationship of buildings to the
street, to one another and to adjacent structures
and land uses, especially single-family
residential.

POLICY LU-8.12 Require residential building entrances to be related to the street.

POLICY LU-8.13 Require parking areas associated with
development to be located and de- signed to
minimize visual impact to the greatest extent
feasible. This may include locating parking
behind buildings street frontage, below grade, or
screening through the use of natural landscaping.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
69 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY LU-8.14 Encourage construction of parking
areas with permeable materials where
appropriate.

POLICY LU-8.15 Require the undergrounding of all
utilities, or a deferred improvement
agreement, in conjunction with new
construction and encourage the
undergrounding of existing utilities
where feasible.

POLICY LU-8.16 Require high quality signage through
design, use of materials and colors
compatible with and complementary
to the architectural character of the
building(s) and surroundings.

POLICY LU-8.17 Require telecommunications and
utility facilities to be sensitively
placed, shielded, screened or lessened
from view to the greatest extent
possible through design review.

POLICY LU-8.18 Encourage “green building” practices
in new development and
redevelopment, such as those that
make a building more energy efficient
and reduces its effect on human health
and the environment through better
siting, design, construction,
maintenance, and operation.

POLICY LU-8.19 Residential and mixed-use structures
shall be designed to be compatible with
existing structures in the vicinity,
minimize obstructing views from
adjacent structures or views of
community importance, minimize
interference with the right or ability to
use solar energy and be consistent with
the Objective Design
Standardscommunity design
principles.

POLICY LU-8.20 Require all new residential multifamily residential, commercial and industrial projects subject to design
review by the appropriate decisionmaking body for compliance with site planning, architecture, signing and
landscaping criteria prior to approval,
as permitted by State law.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 70
POLICY LU-8.21 Utilize railroad corridor development
and design guidelines1 unless an action
conflicts with other parts of the General
Plan.

ACTION LU-8.1 Adopt a form-based zoning code to
emphasize building placement, the
framing of public space and promoting
a pedestrian-oriented environment.

ACTION LU-8.2 Review and amend existing residential
design guidelines and create
commercial design guidelines as
needed.

ACTION LU-8.3 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to limit
the height of building walls at the
street-facing property line to two
stories on the 600, 700 and 800 blocks of
Laurel Street. Additional stories may be
permitted if they are stepped back a
minimum distance from the groundlevel building wall.

ACTION LU-8.4 Review and amend the Sign Ordinance
as needed.

ACTION LU-8.5 Develop objective design standards
consistent with State law and amend
the Zoning Ordinance and create a
Planning Division application
submittal checklist to require
information and materials that
accurately and sufficiently demonstrate
a project’s compliance with new
objective design standards.

ACTION LU-8.6 Research and consider the adoption of
a new outdoor lighting ordinance. A
lighting ordinance would restrict the
type, intensity and placement of outdoor lighting fixtures of development.

A lighting ordinance would permit
appropriate illumination, improve
security, would limit glare or spillover
into surrounding properties and would
protect the night sky.
1 In accordance with Sections 4.800-4.933 of Resolution Number 2003-79.

ACT I ONS
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
71 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
LU-9
Protect and enhance all residential
neighborhoods.

POLICY LU-9.1 Maintain and enhance neighborhoods
to be safe and attractive.

POLICY LU-9.2 Support resident-driven neighborhood
efforts that strengthen identity and
protect and/or enhance neighborhood
character and complement the
principles, goals, policies and actions of
the General Plan.

POLICY LU-9.3 Assure that redevelopment, public or
private, mitigates any negative traffic
and parking impacts on or adjacent to
residential neighborhoods.

POLICY LU-9.4 Mitigation measures shall be utilized
to the greatest extent feasible for
neighborhoods surrounding new proposed development.

POLICY LU-9.5 Require buffering, screening,
transitional standards, or other
measures for new and expanded multifamily residential, mixed use, and/or commercial/industrial developments
adjacent to single-family residential
neighborhoods to minimize impacts
and compatibility conflicts.

POLICY LU-9.6 Encourage the location of support
facilities such as schools, parks and
churches within or near residential
neighborhoods.

POLICY LU-9.7 Encourage the development of
community gardens to provide
opportunity for interactions and
increase residents’ access to healthy
foods.

POLICY LU-9.8 Encourage developers of new or
expanded multi-family residential
projects to include gardening spaces
for

POLICIES
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 72
residents of the development as part of
the landscaping requirement.

POLICY LU-9.9 Encourage the design of development
to minimize the obstruction of
significant views of the San Francisco
Bay, the western hills, or other
significant natural vistas to the greatest
extent possible.

POLICY LU-9.10 On school and formerly school sites,
allow low and moderate income rental
housing units made available to local
educational employees, local public
employees, and then general public at
densities and development standards
in accordance with AB2295, 2022.

POLICY LU-9.11 Require and monitor adequate parking
and/or parking alternatives for new
schools, parks and other public uses
within residential neighborhoods.

POLICY LU-9.12 Ensure that development in residential
areas is compatible with neighborhood
character.

POLICY LU-9.13 Require appropriate transitions of
building scale, massing and height to
adjacent single-family homes.

POLICY LU-9.14 Legally nonconforming multi-family
residential structures located within
multi-family residential zoning
districts may be replaced, restored, or
rebuilt and used consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time
of the replacement, restoring, or
rebuilding.

POLICY LU-9.15 In prioritizing uses for in-kind benefits or bonuses offered by a project
developer, uses benefiting the
neighborhood in which the
development is occurring shall be
considered.

POLICY LU-9.16 Require a contribution of parkland
and/or fees in-lieu of land dedication
as a condition of approval of all new
residential subdivisions.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
73 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY LU-9.17 Require exterior building materials to
be non-combustible in areas of
potential high fire hazard.

POLICY LU-9.18 Continue the City’s program of joint
use of school recreation facilities as a
means of providing adequate
recreation space for San Carlos
citizens.

POLICY LU-9.19 As lands are subdivided, encourage
dedication of trail and path
easements where appropriate to
expand the City and County’s trail
and path system.

POLICY LU-9.20 Conversion of existing rental housing
stock to condominiums shall be
permitted only when it can be shown
that:
 The vacancy rate in rental units in
the city is in excess of 5 percent.
 Adequate provisions are made for
the protection of tenants including
relocation assistance.

POLICY LU-9.21 Consider allowing public school
districts and local private schools to
provide affordable housing units on
school or school-related sites concurrent
with continued school operations.

ACTION LU-9.1 Update development standards and
use regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance for consistency with the
General Plan.

ACTION LU-9.2 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to
include objective design standards,
transitional design standards for multifamily residential buildings and commercial uses adjacent to singlefamily homes, as appropriate.

ACTION LU-9.3 Update development standards to
allow single-family attached, multiplefamily detached, and/or multiplefamily attached affordable housing units to be constructed and maintained
concurrent with school operations on
school or school-related sites.

ACTIONS
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 74
GOAL
LU-10
Minimize the impacts of development in
hillside areas.

POLICY LU-10.1 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.

POLICY LU-10.2 Require development in hillside areas
to be designed into the natural features
of the hillside including topography,
trees, vegetation, landforms and
drainage channels.

POLICY LU-10.3 In hillside areas, encourage houses to
be oriented to the natural topography
of the site.

POLICY LU-10.4 Design and locate roads, utilities and
other infrastructure to reasonably
minimize impacts on the hillside
environment. Design should respect
the natural topography, produce the
least visual impact and require the least
grading while remaining consistent
with public health and safety
standards.

POLICY LU-10.5 Minimize grading and removal of
earth material in hillside areas to the
greatest extent possible.

POLICY LU-10.6 Require all new development and
significantly modified development in
the High and Very High Fire
Susceptibility Zones to install and
maintain fire prevention design and
materials in accordance with Building
and Fire Codes at the time of the
construction/reconstruction.

ACTION LU-10.1 Consider the development of Hillside
Development Guidelines, including the
development of lot size and cross slope
standards.

POLICIES

ACTIONS
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
75 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
LU-11
Provide for attractive and functional gateways.

POLICY LU-11.1 Require high quality design for
buildings at visually significant
locations in gateway areas.

POLICY LU-11.2 Encourage design features, such as
landscaping, art and displays in
gateway areas that are welcoming,
attractive and contribute to a unique
sense of place.

POLICY LU-11.3 Encourage distinctive architectural
features, such as tower elements or a
plaza at building entry, for buildings
located at visually significant locations
within gateway areas.

POLICY LU-11.4 Ensure that building placement,
frontage treatments and landscaping
enhance the pedestrian experience
and increase accessibility within
gateway areas.

POLICY LU-11.5 Limit the visibility of surface parking
within gateway areas through
landscaping and architectural
treatments such as low decorative walls
or trellises.

POLICY LU-11.6 Discourage the use of sound walls
within gateway areas. If sound walls
cannot be avoided, ensure that sound
walls are designed to be attractive and
well landscaped.

POLICY LU-11.7 Require roadway improvements in
gateway areas that enhance
automotive, bicycle and pedestrian
circulation.

POLICY LU-11.8 Place a special emphasis on the
preservation of architecturally
significant buildings within gateway
areas.

POLICIES
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 76
POLICY LU-11.9 Ensure that new development on the
Landmark sites at the northeast and
southeast corners of Holly Street and
Industrial Road function as the primary
gateway features for the Holly Street
Gateway area. Site planning, building
treatments, pedestrian improvements
and landscape features shall exhibit
exceptional design and respect
integrity of adjacent uses including
nearby residential properties.

POLICY LU-11.10 Consider placing street enhancements,
such as welcome signage, at major
entrances to the city and residential
areas as shown on the Gateway Map in
Figure 3-45.

POLICY LU-11.11 Ensure that new development or
redevelopment on the northwest and
southwest corners of Holly Street and
Industrial Road complies with the
policies set forth in Land Use Goal 5.

POLICY LU-11.12 Develop welcoming gateway areas
that emphasize the unique qualities of
San Carlos.

POLICY LU-11.13 Study and evaluate options for improving circulation on Holly Street between Industrial Road and El
Camino Real, working with the public,
in particular the residents of Holly
Street.

ACTION LU-11.1 Develop design guidelines for
development and improvements
within gateway areas to enhance
community character. These guidelines
should promote architectural styles,
land- scape, street furniture, public art
and signage that are in keeping with the
aesthetic values of San Carlos.

ACTIONS
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
77 GENERAL PLAN
Cultural and Historical Resources
Existing Conditions
The City of San Carlos has a rich historical legacy dating back to prehistoric times. 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.

Archaeological Resources
Archaeological data for San Carlos and San Mateo
County is largely missing due to urbanization. There
are documented prehistoric archaeological deposits
near the banks of Cordilleras and Pulgas Creeks where
such items as burned mammal bone and chert flakes
were found. There is more information known about
the Ohlone Indians who inhabited the area beginning
around 500 AD. Their territory extended from
Monterey Bay to San Francisco Bay. However, due to
Spanish settlement in the 18th century, much of the
information known about the various Ohlone tribes is
from a European perspective. There is little physical
evidence of their settlement in San Carlos.

Museum of San Carlos History and the San Carlos
Villagers
The Museum of San Carlos History, located at 533
Laurel Street, has a collection of artifacts, photographs and documents relating to the history of the city. The
col- lection includes Native American artifacts such as a grinding stone, photos of early San Carlos life,
information on the city and memorabilia from San
Carlos High School and past Chickens’ Ball events. The
Museum also serves as a source of information for
research on local families and historic properties in the city.

The San Carlos Villagers serve as Museum docents and
handle the day-to-day affairs of the Museum. The San
Carlos Villagers were formed in April 1949 to preserve
the history of San Carlos and were appointed as
Museum docents by the City Council in 1981. Villagers
collect documents, photos and memorabilia that reflect
San Carlos’ rich background and safeguard it for future generations. The Villagers are composed of volunteers
from the community and any resident of San Carlos is
invited to become a Village.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 78
Historic Architecture and Urban Design:

The early development pattern of San Carlos began in
the late 1800s with the construction of the San Carlos
Train Depot in 1888. Lot sizes and expanded and
widened streets, including San Carlos Avenue were
established following the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake. Another period of expanded
infrastructure and development of housing occurred
in 1917. As development moved westward, 1924
marked the creation of the Devonshire Hills
subdivision on a 1,400-acre site. This subdivision used principles from the Garden City urban planning
movement, established dogleg cul de sacs and passthrough walkways. Bungalow architecture later gave rise to English Tudor and Spanish Eclectic styles
found in and near the Downtown. The city has many
fine examples of late 19th and early 20th century
architecture. These buildings are documented in the
city’s 1991 Historic Resources Inventory. Two of the
city’s historic resources are listed in the National
Register of Historic Places as noted below.

Historically Noteworthy Properties
San Carlos has two listings in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s cultural resource
inventory. The Southern Pacific Depot at 559 El
Camino Real is one listing on the National Register.

Leland Stanford assisted with construction of the train depot by providing materials, Italian stonemasons, and
members from his architectural staff to design and
build the structure. Built in the unique Richardson
Romanesque style, the depot is one of San Carlos’ most
prominent architectural landmarks. The other listing,
located at 125 Dale Avenue, was built by Nathanial
Brittan, son of John Brittan, in 1872. Nathanial was a
member of the San Francisco Bohemian Club and often
hosted club members at this three story octagonal
“folly” Victorian home.

Existing Preservation Plans and Policies
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 which 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 Gar- dens, constructed in 1931, was the
first apartment complex in the city.
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
79 GENERAL PLAN
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 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.

Although these resources are highly valued by the City, San Carlos has no historic preservation ordinance, nor
formal designation. Protection of historic resources is provided through the California Environ- mental
Quality Act (CEQA), which requires that any potential
impacts to historical properties be sufficiently
evaluated, but does not necessarily prohibit demolition of or damage to a potentially historically significant
property.

Early development in San Carlos
Residential street in Laureola Neighborhood
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 80
Goals, Policies and Actions
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, cultural, and tribal cultural re- sources early in the
development re- view 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-12.5 Treat with respect and dignity any
human remains discovered during
implementation of public and private
projects within the city and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.

POLICY LU-12.6 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 Use public art to enliven and beautify
the public realm at appropriate
locations.

POLICIES
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
81 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY LU-12.8 Retain the exterior architectural character and setting of the Historical San Carlos Depot and San Carlos Museum
(former San Carlos Fire House).

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, and tribal cultural 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.

ACTION LU-12.5 Develop and implement a Public Arts
Action Plan.

ACTION LU-12.6 The City of San Carlos shall develop
mapping to indicate areas in the City
with archaeological sensitivity and
guidance documentation for public and
private construction projects that
involve ground disturbance activities in
areas with archaeological sensitivity.

The requirements may include 1) an
archeological records search, 2)
construction training for cultural
sensitivity, and 3) procedures if
archaeologic resources are discovered.

Drake Building

ACTIONS
3 LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 82
Intentionally Left Blank
Circulation and
Scenic Highways Element

CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
ADO P T ED MAY 9, 2005 AN D AME N D ED APR IL 14, 2008
Introduction
Purpose
The location and appropriate size of roads for the
private automobile and public bus are important to San
Carlos residents. Adequate facilities for other
transportation modes help reduce dependence on the
auto mobile as a method of reducing traffic congestion, improving safety, reducing pollution, promoting energy
conservation, promoting health and increasing
accessibility for all residents.

The Scenic Highways Element deals with identification
and protection of the scenic qualities of major road
corridors. The San Carlos Scenic Highways Element
describes a system of selected roads with adjacent scenic corridors and a set of implementation policies
establishing a program for protection and enhancement
of scenic qualities within these corridors. The Plan
involves State, County and local scenic highways and
84 GENERAL PLAN
Contents
82 Introduction
83 Circulation System
88 Circulation
90 Transportation Demand Measures
91 Transportation Facilities
92 Scenic Highways
95 Goals, Policies and Actions
5 The Circulation Element describes facilities for the efficient transportation of goods and the safe and effective movement of people throughout the City. It includes a plan of the streets and highways plus facilities for pedestrian, bicycle, rail and air transportation. 5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 85
roads, and as such represents the local component of the regional scenic highway system.

Relation to Other Elements
The Circulation Element is primarily related to the Land Use and Housing Elements. Circulation routes must
consider the accommodation of public utilities, the
intensity and pattern of land use and the provision of
local connections along designated points for access and safety. Transportation routes must be sensitive to
employment locations and concentrations of residential
groups to be served.

The Scenic Highways Element is primarily related to the Land Use Element and secondarily related to the
Environmental Management and Parks and Recreation
Elements.

The Circulation and Scenic Highways Element was
updated in 2005 and amended in 2008. It has been reformatted for integration into the 2030 General Plan.

Goals, objectives and policies are formatted and
numbered consistent with the 2030 General Plan
numbering system and as goals, policies and actions.

Circulation System
The streets and highways in San Carlos may be divided
into four classifications: freeway/state highway, arterial street, collector street and minor street. Freeways and State highways are the primary responsibility of the
California Department of Transportation. As such, the
geometries and cross-section design of these facilities are largely determined by that agency.

The street system within San Carlos is structured
around arterial streets, which often carry the larger
volume of traffic around, rather than through residential districts, commercial districts and industrial districts.

The arterials are fed by collector streets which act to collect traffic from minor streets within each of the
districts. Usable road width, sight distance and travel speed generally increase as one moves from minor
streets to more important travel routes. A local system of curved streets with offset intersections is considered preferable to the standard grid system. Curved
residential streets help prevent through traffic and add character to the neighborhood.

Overall, the amount of total traffic is expected to
increase in direct proportion with increased population. 5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
86 GENERAL PLAN
Table 5-1 shows the normal range of traffic capacity on through streets in terms of average daily traffic.

Type
Volume
(ADT) Lane
Highway 20,000 per lane 4-10
Arterial 10,000 – 30,000 2-4
Major Collector 5,000 – 10.000 2
Collector 5,000 2
Freeways and State Highways
San Carlos is situated between two major freeways:

U.S. 101 and Interstate 280. U.S. 101 and Interstate 280 are major north-south links between the Cities of San
Francisco and San Jose. U.S. 101 is a significant source of noise affecting the community. Interstate 280 is a
state-recognized scenic route. El Camino Real (State
Route 82) traverses the city parallel to the railroad tracks in a northwest-southeast direction. The highway
functions as an inter-city traffic facility with adjacent highway commercial uses. Within San Carlos, El
Camino Real should have a minimum of four lanes for
moving traffic and a median divider with left turn
stacking lanes. Left turn lanes should be spaced to guide traffic to arterial and collector streets as well as the Central District. Site and building design, landscaping and control are extremely important considerations on
adjacent properties. Land uses should continue to be
highway commercial oriented.

A southbound off- and on-ramp now connects Brittan
Avenue with U.S. 101. This added partial interchange
helps provide access to the San Carlos industrial area
and relieves congestion at the Holly Street/U.S. 101
interchanges by allowing traffic to enter the industrial area at Brittan Avenue.

A full cloverleaf exists at the Holly Street/U.S. 101
interchange.

Arterial Streets
Arterial streets comprise the major network of streets
within the community. Their function is to link
residential, commercial and industrial districts with the freeways and highway system, to provide convenient
access to other transportation facilities and to act as the TABLE 5-1 TRAFFIC CAPACITY RANGE
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 87
major emergency service and evacuation routes.

Arterials are typically two- to four-lane streets having some controls over parking and access points. The
arterials also perform the important function of acting as north- south routes should the freeway system be
blocked to emergency vehicles. As San Carlos has no
east-west highways, they also serve as primary eastwest routes.

Frequently there are serious conflicts between the landservice and traffic-service functions of arterial streets. If the land adjacent to the arterial is intensively used, the conflict is hazardous and the accident potential is high.

The traffic function of arterials, that of moving relatively large volumes of vehicles, is most important. Land
access is its secondary function. For this reason
driveways and intersections should be kept to a
minimum.

Arterial streets should be designed to carry two to four moving lanes of traffic.

The City has completed several street modifications and improvements designed to accommodate traffic in the
Holly Street/Brittan Avenue/Howard Avenue corridor:

1. Widened and added turn lanes to the El Camino
Real, Old County Road and Industrial Road intersections with Holly Street.

ARTERIAL STREETS IN SAN CARLOS
Arterials Number of Lanes
Alameda de las Pulgas 2-4
Brittan Avenue 2-4
Crestview Drive 2-4
Holly Street 2-4
Crestview Drive 2-4
Howard Avenue
(Laurel Street to Industrial Road) 2-4
Industrial Road 4
Laurel Street 2
Old County Road 2
San Carlos Avenue 2-4
Shoreway Road 2
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
88 GENERAL PLAN

2. Constructed a Holly Street grade separation
at Old County Road/Railroad/El Camino
Real. This grade separation provides for
increased safety and congestion reduction
for increased rail commuter service during
peak hours.

3. Constructed southbound off- and on-ramps
at Brittan Avenue and U.S. 101. Widened
Brittan Avenue from U.S. 101 to El Camino
Real and constructed a grade-separation at
Brittan Avenue and Old County
Road/Railroad/El Camino Real. The Brittan Avenue grade separation also includes a grade separation at Howard Avenue and Old
County Road/Railroad/El Camino Real.

Circulation System
Arterial Streets
Additional improvements will be necessary on Holly
Street/Brittan Avenue/U.S. 101 intersections and
roadways for increased interchange capacity and
improved access to and from U.S. 101.

1. At the Holly Street/U.S. 101 Interchange, widen the
eastbound to northbound on-ramp loop to two
lanes, eliminate the northbound to westbound offramp loop, widen the northbound off-ramp to two lanes and install a traffic signal for westbound
traffic.

2. Widen eastbound Holly Street approaching
Industrial Road by 10 feet for a distance of 205 feet
to increase the length of the three-lane segment from
115 feet to 320 feet.

3. Widen Brittan Avenue to add an approximately 400-
foot dedicated left-turn lane eastbound approaching
Industrial Road.

Collector Streets
Collector streets are of less importance than arterials but should still be designed to carry through traffic. These facilities, as their name implies, have the prime purpose of collecting traffic. Their function is to transfer traffic from local generators (residential neighborhoods,
schools and employment centers) and minor streets to
arterials. The design of collector streets should reflect this emphasis on carrying traffic. They should be twolane streets and protected from cross traffic. Local streets should avoid crossing a collector, T-intersections are preferred and good sight distance at
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 89
intersections is necessary. Collector streets should not form a continuous system; otherwise there will be a
tendency to use them as arterials.

Local Streets Local streets are used to provide access
to abutting property, locations for easements, open
space for light and air and a firebreak between
buildings. Carrying traffic is a secondary function of
local streets and they should be designed to discourage through traffic. Local streets are an important element in community d sign. These facilities provide a permanent framework for building and landscaping. Local streets are typically two-lane facilities with direct access to abutting properties. On-street parking should be provided
wherever topographically possible and should consider
the integration of sidewalks and bicycle lanes
Streets and Sidewalk Standards
Local conditions may necessitate modification and
flexibility of street and sidewalk standards where
topography, location, or other conditions warrant.

Detailed standards for street and sidewalk
improvements, including street trees and landscaped
strips are set forth in San Carlos Subdivision Ordinance and Standard Details.

COLLECTOR STREETS IN SAN CARLOS
Collectors
Number of
Lanes
Arroyo 2
Beverly Drive/Windsor Drive/Torino Drive 2
Cedar Street 2
Club Drive 2
Cordilleras Avenue 2
Devonshire Avenue 2
Devonshire Boulevard 2
Easton Avenue 2
Elm Street 2
Hillcrest Road/Shelford Avenue/Wellington Drive 2
Howard Avenue 2
Melendy Drive 2
St. Francis Way 2
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
90 GENERAL PLAN
Traffic Volume and Intersection Service
Levels
The City shall employ Level of Service (LOS) metrics for Non-CEQA transportation analysis and Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) metrics for CEQA transportation
analysis. The City’s Transportation Study Guidelines
(Resolution No. 2024XX-118XXX) provides more
information on the methodologies and analysis
requirements. Updated traffic volume estimates for the
easternportion of the city were derived in 2001 and have been incorporated into this document. The level of
service of an intersection can vary from “A” free flow
through “F” forced flow jammed as defined in Table 5-

2. The intersection counts and volume/capacity ratios
were based on peak traffic volume (typically between
4:00 and 6:00 p.m. in San Carlos). Traffic volumes are
presented in forms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT).

With the passage of California Senate Bill (SB) 743 in
2013, beginning July 1, 2020, public agencies are
required to use vehicle miles travelled (VMT) metrics,
rather than level of service (LOS) metrics, to address
CEQA transportation-related impacts. However, the
city continues to maintain LOS as a metric in evaluating non-CEQA transportation analysis.

Level of Service (LOS)
Volume to
Capacity Ratio
(V/C)
TABLE 5-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE (TRANSPORTATION

RESEARCH BOARD)
A Free Flow Less than or equal
to 0.60
B Stable Flow (Slight Delay) 0.61 – 0.70
C Stable Flow (Acceptable Delay) 0.71 – 0.80
D Approaching Unstable Flow (Tolerable
Delay) 0.81 – 0.90
E Unstable Flow (Congestion; Intolerable
Delay) 0.91 – 1.00
F Forced Flow (Jammed) Greater than 1.00
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 91
CCirculation
Holly Street – Brittan Ave./U.S. 101 Access
San Carlos currently has two accesses to U.S. 101 at
Holly Street and Brittan Avenue within the city limit.

Harbor Boulevard in Belmont and Whipple Avenue in
Redwood City also provide a means of access to the
community from the Bayshore (U.S. 101) freeway. The
Holly Street interchange consists of a full cloverleaf
and a six-lane over-crossing. Approximately 12,000
cars per day enter the city via the Holly Street interchange.

Between the Ralston Avenue and Whipple Avenue
interchanges, average daily traffic on U.S. 101 is
approximately 220,000 vehicles. U.S. 101 is currently
operating at a LOS F in both directions at peak hours.

Changes and intensification of land use can contribute
to a reduction of level of service to unacceptable levels.

In 2007, a level of service, under cumulative conditions, analysis was conducted for buildout allowed by
projected growth and planned projects. It was
determined that several intersections, under future
conditions, would operate at unacceptable levels of
service.

Cumulative traffic from foreseeable projects will result in the intersections along Holly Street/Brittan
Avenue/U.S. 101 to function at the following service
levels (Table 5-32).

Source: Palo Alto Medical Foundation San Carlos Center, Addendum to the EIR, July 2007, Appendix B. SCH# 2003062086,
Road improvements to the Brittan Avenue/Industrial
Road intersection, Holly Street/Industrial Road
intersection and the Holly Street/U.S. 101 Interchange
would reduce cumulative impacts to a less- thansignificant level. Improvements described in the discussion of Arterial Streets (above) to the Holly
Street/Brittan Avenue/Hwy 101 intersections and
roadways will be necessary to return intersections to
acceptable levels. Measures which require a fair share of the cost of mitigation, for the traffic generated by the impacts of development, should be considered by the
City.

Intersection
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
El Camino Real/Holly
Old County Road/Holly
Industrial/Holly
Brittan/Industrial
TABLE 5-23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
92 GENERAL PLAN
Parking
Adequate off-street parking is necessary to relieve
traffic congestion in San Carlos’ commercial, industrial and residential areas. All new developments should
provide for adequate off-street parking to avoid
residential impacts and encourage the use of alternate
transportation. As development intensifies or land
uses change, an off-street parking problem could
development. Some possible solutions might include
expansion of the parking plazas, changed parking time
controls, or alternative transportation systems.

Facilities for the Disabled
State law requires that extra wide parking spaces be
provided for disabled persons at locations near the
entry to public buildings and business developments.

Curb ramps at street intersections designed to facilitate wheelchairs should be provided and made conditions
of project approval for new developments where
feasible.

Pedestrian Facilities and Trails
Pedestrian sidewalks should be installed in those areas where new development occurs. Sidewalks might not
be appropriate in those areas where their inclusion
would be inconsistent with prior development in the
surrounding area.

A local trails system is part of San Carlos’ circulation system. This planned trail system partially exists in the Western Hills area and is being expanded by the City’s
Trails Committee and Parks and Recreation Department.

Bicycle Facilities
Two regional level bike trails are located outside of the city limit to the west in the San Francisco Watershed
property and to the east through Redwood Shores. The
two regional systems as well as the main bike trails
through San Carlos are consistent with the San Mateo
County “Bikeways Plan.”
Standards for bike routes in San Carlos are those adopted by the California Department of Transportation. In
general, the bike route designations in San Carlos consist of roadway striping to provide separate bike lanes and
signing. Wherever possible, bike paths separating
bicycles from vehicular traffic are considered desirable.

The City’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee has
been combined with the Traffic and Transportation
Commission to form a new Commission called the
Transportation and Circulation Commission, who is
working on updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 93
Transportation Demand Measures
(TDMs)
Through both local and regional implementation of
TDM Programs, the City intends to address traffic
congestion problems by effectively managing future
commercial and residential growth. The following
sections describe in detail the City’s Transportation
Systems Management Strategies.

Regional Efforts
The City of San Carlos endorses the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Congestion Management Program
requiring vehicle trip reduction measures for projects
generating a net 100 or more peak-period trips in the
Congestion Management Program network.

Local Policies
In addition to regional efforts, San Carlos has local
policies designed to reduce the vehicle trips generated by development. These policies are outlined in this
document.

Transportation Facilities
Transportation facilities provide for the movement of
goods and people generally along fixed routes and on
a fixed schedule in contrast to the circulation system
of roads for private automobiles and trucks which
permit random movement. Three modes of transportation
are readily available to San Carlos: rail, road and air.

Rail Facilities
Rail service to San Carlos consists of the railroad line from Gilroy to San Francisco. The railroad provides both
consumer and freight services through the city. A
significant portion of San Carlos residents work in San Francisco, north San Mateo County, San Jose, or Santa
Clara County. Significant energy savings, safety
improvements and pollution reduction result from those
who use the commuter trains rather than driving private automobiles.

Public Bus
The San Mateo Transit District provides inter-county bus services to all of the cities of Bayside San Mateo County.

Local service is available to parts of San Carlos and
commuter service is available via express routes along
Bayshore Freeway.

Air
The San Mateo County Airport at San Carlos is a general aviation facility located in the eastern portion of the city.

The airport is primarily oriented to private planes used for business andpleasure. Forinternational flights, San Carlos residents rely on the San
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
94 GENERAL PLAN
Francisco, Oakland and San Jose International
Airports. These airports can be reached by San Carlos
residents in three ways; 1) by private vehicle, 2) by
SamTrans and VTA buses, and 3) Caltrain through its
connection with BART.

Scenic Highways
Scenic Roads and Corridors
The Scenic Highways portion of this Element is a plan
for the development, establishment and protection of
scenic roads of State, regional and local value. View
sheds from scenic roads are an important resource to
San Mateo County and to San Carlos for both aesthetic
and recreational values. It is common for persons to
select travel routes for visual amenities as well as for consideration of travel time and operating speeds.

Scenic corridors can best be defined as the visual land area outside the road right-of-way and generally describedas the “view fromthe road.” Itis within this area that development standards are applied to retain and
enhance scenic qualities andrestrictunsightlyuse ofthe
land. These standards may include architectural and
site review procedures and regulations on building
setbacks, signs, grading, tree removal and undergrounding of utility lines.

In 1963, the State of California adopted a Master Plan for scenic highways which defines the system of scenic
highways for State growth. In San Mateo County, four
routes are included in the Master Plan. They are the
Cabrillo (Coast) Highway (State Route 1); Skyline
Boulevard (State Route 35); Half Moon Bay Road, west of Interstate Route 280 (Route Map 92); and Junipero State Freeway (Interstate Route 280). This system of State roads in San Mateo County constitutes the greatest length of
scenic highway mileage in all of the nine Bay Area
Counties and acknowledgment by the State of the
abundance of scenic attributes which exist in San Mateo County. However, inclusion in the State Master Plan does not automatically designate a road an official State scenic highway; it merely indicates that the road qualifies for official designation and so may receive an official
designation if a specific scenic corridor is defined for the roadway and a plan and program for protecting scenic
resources within the corridor area adopted. If the scenic corridor and regulatory controls adopted by a jurisdiction are satisfactory to the State, the county roads or State highways are then officially designated as State scenic highways.

This Scenic Highways Element specifies roads within the State Master Plan in the vicinity of San Carlos and, also, City and County roads with significant scenic value.
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 95
State Scenic Highway
Junipero Serra Freeway (Interstate 280). This State
freeway extends the entire length of the county from
Daly City to Menlo Park (28.5) miles. Designed as the
world’s most beautiful freeway, this highway
traverses the foothills of the Peninsula between San
Francisco and San Jose. Sweeping panoramic views of
the Bayside and the San Francisco Watershed
property are visible from four vista points adjacent to the roadway. The highway was designed to blend
with its natural surroundings and two of its bridges
have won national awards for excellence of design.

This road is included in the State Master Plan for
scenic highways.

County Scenic Highways
Edgewood Road. Edgewood Road is located
immediately adjacent to the San Carlos planning area
connecting Alameda de las Pulgas with Cañada Road
and Interstate 280. The rural nature of the area
through which this road passes, its scenic views and
surrounding land use warrant inclusion as a scenic
road. Edge- wood Road passes the Hetch Hetchy
Aqueduct right- of-way, the Pulgas Ridge Regional
Open Space and the Edgewood County Park site.

Cañada Road. Cañada Road is located westerly of the San Carlos planning area and within the limits of the San
Francisco Watershed lands. These lands are dedicated to permanent open space providing a pleasant drive between Edgewood Road and State Route 92 to the north. It is also used extensively by bicyclists.

City Scenic Roads
Alameda de las Pulgas. Alameda de las Pulgas is an
arterial city street traversing north to south from San Carlos Avenue to Eaton Avenue and is lined with
residential uses. The street is characterized by trees, landscaping and low- to medium-density residential
development. Within San Carlos, special landscape
treatment has been implemented at points along the road to enhance the corridor.

San Carlos Avenue. San Carlos Avenue is an arterial,
urban city street traversing east to northwest between El Camino Real and Cranfield Avenue and is lined with
commercial and residential uses. Some locations afford
urban landscape views of hills or the San Francisco Bay.

Within San Carlos, special landscape treatment has been implemented at points along the route to enhance the
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
96 GENERAL PLAN
corridor. Tree-lined stretches of San Carlos Avenue
along the Pulgas Creek open space corridor that were
planted by early settler Timothy Guy Phelps in 1863
provide scenic riparian habitat. Descending into
downtown San Carlos, San Carlos Avenue provides a
view corridor of the historic Romanesque train station
completed in 1888 and City Hall Park. Continued
maintenance of the residential and commercial land
uses adjacent to this route is anticipated.

Brittan Avenue. Brittan Avenue is an arterial street
locatedto the south of Holly Street extending the length of the city in an east/west direction from U.S. 101
to Crestview Drive. Brittan Avenue is considered a
primary entry and access to San Carlos. Street
improvements have included a grade separation and
landscaping.

Brittan Avenue from Alameda de las Pulgas to Crestview Drive extends through a canyon representative of the natural interior coast range woodland. Singlefamily homes front on Brittan Avenue with a backdrop of hillside open space retained in permanent City
ownership. A portion ofthenorthern side ofthe canyon
is permanently protected by the existence of Big
Canyon Park.

Club Drive. Club Drive extends from San Carlos
Avenue to Crestview Drive. The route climbs a major
ridge where significant panoramic views are available.

Club Drive is generally lined with single-family
residential uses with open space uses existing in the
canyon below.

Crestview Drive. Crestview Drive extends along the
major ridge in the western portion of San Carlos. The
route extends from the Belmont city limit southerly to
connect with Edgewood Road at the lower elevations
near the headwaters of Cordilleras Creek. The route
offers views of the San Francisco Bay and the San
Francisco Watershed lands.

El Camino Real. El Camino Real is a State Highway
paralleling the railroad extending from Redwood City
on the south to Belmont on the north. Beautification
efforts have included landscaped medians with left turn pockets and landscaping along the east and west sides.

Holly Street. Holly Street is an arterial street extending east to west from U.S. 101 to Elm Street. Holly Street is considered a primary entry and access to San Carlos.

Street improvements have included entryway
decorative features, a grade separation and landscaping. 5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 97
San Carlos Airport
Goals, Policies and Actions
Circulation and Transportation
GOAL
CSH-1
To develop a circulation system that is
safe, environmentally-friendly and
responsive to the needs of various land
uses planned within the City of San Carlos.

POLICY CSH-1.1 Widths of streets and highways should
be sufficient to address existing and
projected traffic volumes, emergency
access requirements, while providing
positive pedestrian and bicycle
experiences.

POLICY CSH-1.2 The major road system should be
designed to carry traffic around
rather than through residential
areas.

POLICY CSH-1.3 Adequate access should be
provided to the commercial and
industrial areas of the city.

POLICY CSH-1.4 Adequate freeway access and interchange capacity should be considered and planned for to
accommodate future traffic
circulation needs.

POLICIES
Caltrain Shuttle from San Carlos Train Station
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
98 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
CSH-2
To provide a safe, efficient and
aesthetically pleasing circulation network
for various transportation modes in
addition to the automobile.

POLICY CSH-2.1 Continue to recognize, protect and support the San Carlos Airport as a regionally
important general aviation facility.

POLICY CSH-2.2 Provide for adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities as viable transportation modes in
San Carlos, as recommended in the San
Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

POLICY CSH-2.3 Access to public transportation facilities should be convenient and designed to
encourage use of public transit.

ACTION CSH-2.1 Plan for the expansion of the airport
in accordance with the adopted Airport Land Use Committee Plan. Provide adequate surface transportation access to that facility.

ACTION CSH-2.2 Continue to support operation of
adequate public bus service throughout
San Carlos.

ACTION CSH-2.3 Support the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board efforts to upgrade and
expand the Peninsula rail service. Work
with that agency in implementing its
plans forlocal facility improvements.

ACTIONS
Denotes synergy
with Climate
Action Plan

POLICIES
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 99
POLICY CSH-3.1 Strive to reduce baseline and
development-related traffic by 20
percent through public-private
partnership efforts implementing and
enforcing the Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance.

POLICY CSH-3.2 Support city-wide efforts to reduce
vehicular trips within and through the
community.

POLICY CSH-3.3 Support the incorporation of
Transportation Demand Management
measures in new development to
reduce traffic impacts.

POLICY CSH-3.4 Support Smart Growth and Sustainability
principles to reduce travel time from
housing to jobs, provide affordable
transportation to all members of the
community, allow compact mixed- use
development and decrease dependency on
automobiles.

POLICY CSH-3.5 Street and right-of-way widths should be designed and constructed in accordance
with the street standards established in this
plan, the City Subdivision Ordinance and
Standard Details. However, flexibility for
street widths should be permitted with
sensitivity to slope, neighborhood character,
traffic volume, emergency access
requirements, and pedestrian/bicycle
needs.

POLICY CSH-3.6 Parking and access facilities in the
Central District shall be designed to
adequately accommodate both customers
and employees.

POLICY CSH-3.7 Public sidewalks and walkways shall be
designed to accommodate access in
accordance with the Americans with
GOAL
CSH-3
Maintain a street and highway system
which accommodates future growth while
maintaining acceptable levels of service.

POLICIES
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
100 GENERAL PLAN
Disabilities Act, and including any other
applicable State and federal laws,
regulations and guidelines, and shall be
kept clear of obstruction.

POLICY CSH-3.8 The City shall strive to maintain intersectioncontinue to evaluate service levels metrics above the mid- range oflevelD(not
to exceed a Volume- to-Capacity Ratio
(V/C) of .85 or a total average delay time
at intersections of 45 seconds whenever
V/C Ratio is not available) metrics as
provided by the City’s Transportation
Significance Criteria as adopted Nov 12,
2024 Resolution 2024-118. The City
recognizes that certain development
project(s) may cause this these level of
service goalthresholds to be exceeded. The
City may ap- prove such development
project(s) if specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits outweigh
the adverse effects of exceeding the midrange level D goal thresholds as set forth in the Transportation Significance Criteria.

POLICY CSH-3.9 Where appropriate and relevant, based on the location and scope of a development project
under consideration, the City shall consider
regional, as well as local traffic impacts when
assessing new development projects.

POLICY CSH-3.10 The City shall support efforts for a coordinated transportation system and maintaining acceptable levels of traffic with
local, regional and Caltrans agencies.

POLICY CSH-3.11 New developments and businesses shall be required to provide adequate loading,
unloading and delivery areas, and/or shall be
required to conduct such activities during
non- business/peak hours.

POLICY CSH-3.12 The City should preserve its existing alley and pedestrian path systems to the maximum
extent feasible.

POLICY CSH-3.13 The City may consider traffic-calming devices to reduce speeds and to discourage thru traffic
in residential neighborhoods. Impacts of
diverting traffic to adjacent neighborhoods,
bicycle and pedestrian access and safety, noise,
emergency response time, aesthetics and
maintenance should be reviewed prior to
allowing traffic- calming devices.
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 101
POLICY CSH-3.14 The City shall support the continued
operation and upgrading of the
railroad commuter service between
Gilroy and San Francisco.

POLICY CSH-3.15 The City supports dedication and
preservation of rights-of-way for future
transit service along the rail corridor.

POLICY CSH-3.16 The City shall support adequate access
to affordable transportation alternatives
for people with impaired mobility.

POLICY CSH-3.17 The City shall consider revising its
parking requirements to reflect current
trends in business, industry and
housing.

ACTION CSH-3.1 New development projects shall be
required to mitigate traffic, circulation
and/or parking impacts. The City may
impose a mitigation fee on new
developments for the proportional
share of costs to mitigate the traffic,
circulation and/or parking impact of a
project.

ACTION CSH-3.2 The City shall consider adoption of a
Transportation Impact Fee for new
development to support city-wide
Transportation Demand Management
measures.

ACTION CSH-3.3 The City shall support local school district efforts to reduce traffic through programs
such as safe routes to school, school pools
and school bus/shuttle programs.

ACTION CSH-3.4 The City shall encourage City employees to utilize alternative transportation through
incentive, ridesharing and guaranteed ride
home programs.

ACTION CSH-3.5 The City shall coordinate with adjacent
communities and responsible agencies to
provide an interconnected system of
pedestrian ways, trails, bikeways and transit
routes.

ACTION CSH-3.6 The City shall consider traffic control
measures at intersections when traffic
volumes and safety warrants are met.

ACTIONS
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
102 GENERAL PLAN
ACTION CSH-3.7 The City shall strive to reduce vehicular trip generation from new development
by 20 percent, using a combination of
both public and private funds and
efforts. The 20 percent reduction shall be
obtained through implementation of
Transportation Demand Measures
(TDMs). For private development
projects, no less than a 10 percent reduction in vehicular trip generation should be attained through the
implementation of TDMs that are
privately funded and implemented.

TDMs may include, but are not limited
to, incorporation of the following
measures into new development
projects:
 Mixed-use areas
 Neighborhood centers
 Pedestrian-oriented public and private
development improvements
 Increased/enhanced pedestrian
linkages
 Bicycle-friendly improvements
 Access to transit corridor
 Participation in local public shuttle
programs
 Parking management
 Links between commercial, residential and
industrial areas of the community
 Access to a variety of transportation modes
 C/CAG Congestion Management Plan Trip
Reduction Measures
ACTION CSH-3.8 The City shall consider designating Infill Opportunity Zones as outlined in SB 1636.

ACTION CSH-3.9 The City shall support San Mateo
City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) policies on Congestion
Management.

ACTION CSH-3.10 The City shall support an intra-city
(east/west) local shuttle to feed into other
forms of local and regional transportation.

Pedestrians crossing San Carlos Avenue
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 103
Bicycle and Pedestrian
GOAL
CSH-4
Provide for safe walking and bicycle riding
for transportation and recreation.

POLICY CSH-4.1 Support bicycle safety education
programs for bicyclists and motorists of
all ages.

POLICY CSH-4.2 Reduce potential conflicts, safety
hazards and physical obstacles between
bicyclists, automobiles and pedestrians
and ensure compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and
including any other applicable State and
federal laws, regulations and guidelines.

POLICY CSH-4.3 The safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, as well as motorists shall be considered in
street design wherever possible.

ACTION CSH-4.1 Provisions shall be made for bicycle
transportation within the city as
designated on the San Carlos plan for
bicycle routes.

Caltrain at San Carlos Train Station

POLICIES

ACTIONS
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
104 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY CSH-5.1 Connect neighborhoods, school sites,
activity centers, transportation centers,
recreational sites and other important
community amenities with sidewalks,
pedestrian paths, trails and bikeways.

POLICY CSH-5.2 The City shall support the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board
improvement of the railroad station
and adjacent parking facilities. In
general, the station should act as a
major transportation terminal for the
city providing facilities for bus, auto
parking, bicycle storage, public
gathering spaces
and community amenities, consistent
with the historic character of the station.

POLICY CSH-5.3 Support an interconnected system of
pedestrian ways, paths, trails, bikeways
and transit routes within the city and
between adjacent communities.

ACTION CSH-5.1 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
should be encouraged to alleviate
existing parking deficiencies through
its redesign and the expansion of the
San Carlos Depot’s parking lots,
consistent with the character of the
Train Station.

POLICIES
GOAL
CSH-5
Ensure all modes of transportation connect safely and efficiently both within San Carlos and with neighboring jurisdictions.

ACTIONS
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 105
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.

POLICY CSH-6.3 Encourage developers to consider
alternatives to at-grade parking for new
development.

ACTION CSH-6.1 Support improved east-west
connectivity by providing
pedestrian/bicycle under crossings of
the Caltrain tracks at intervals, during
future track reconstruction, or as
developer mitigation.

Bicyclist on Old County Road

POLICIES
GOAL
CSH-6
Integrate transportation and land use.

ACTIONS
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
106 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY CSH-7.1 Trails and paths intended for general
circulation shall provide reasonably
direct and convenient routes of travel
for potential users.

POLICY CSH-7.2 Crosswalks at major intersections
should be preserved wherever possible,
particularly in areas with high
pedestrian traffic.

POLICY CSH-7.3 Financing and implementation of
street modifications for pedestrian or
bicycle use shall, whenever possible, be
integrated with other related programs, including, but not limited to:
street and road projects, street or
sidewalk maintenance projects and
traffic mitigation programs.

POLICY CSH-7.4 Support traffic controls that recognize
bicycles and pedestrians.

POLICY CSH 7.5 Encourage bicycle storage (public and
private) and improved bikeway access
to station stops and park and ride
facilities.

POLICY CSH-7.6 Support the provision of railcars
sufficiently equipped for use by
bicyclists.

POLICY CSH-7.7 Public trails should be located and
designed so that they serve the needs of
the public while minimizing private
property impacts.

POLICY CSH-7.8 The local public path and trail system
should be linked with existing private
and regional systems and the road
system.

POLICIES
GOAL
CSH-7
Contribute to a comprehensive regional
trail system for alternative transportation
and outdoor recreation purposes.
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 107
Scenic Highways and Roads
ACTION CSH-7.1 The local trails system should be
documented and enhanced as part of
the city’s circulation system.

ACTION CSH-7.2 Residential sidewalks shall be a minimum of 4 feet wide and commercial sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet
wide wherever possible.

ACTION CSH-7.3 Provide continuity to bike routes
within the City and interjurisdictionally.

ACTION CSH-7.4 As lands are subdivided, dedication of
trail and path easements should be required where appropriate as a part of the City and County’s trail and path
system. Subdividers should dedicate,
construct and maintain trails and paths
wherever feasible.

POLICY CSH-8.1 The City shall continue its program of
protecting and enhancing local scenic
roads through right-of-way protection
and appropriate architectural and
landscape controls and requirements.

POLICY CSH-8.2 The City shall encourage the planting of native trees and shrubs along local
scenic roads, where practical.

POLICY CSH-8.3 The City shall maintain local scenic
roads in safe condition.

ACTIONS
GOAL
CSH-8
To develop a system of scenic highways
and roads that reflects the aesthetic and
visual qualities of the existing and
developing San Carlos landscape and the
surrounding region.

POLICIES
5 CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
108 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY CSH-8.4 The City shall continue architectural
and site plan review of all signage,
structures and site developments proposed in the scenic corridors to ensure appropriateness of design and
materials and proper placement of
structures and vegetative screening
where necessary.

POLICY CSH-8.5 Traffic mitigation funds should be
available to provide aesthetic
enhancement to the city’s Scenic Highways and Roads.

ACTION CSH-8.1 As utility funds become available, the
City shall undertake further undergrounding of utilities with priority for projects adjacent to local scenic roads.

ACTION CSH-8.2 The City should consider conducting a
comprehensive study and update to the
local scenic road designations.

Bicycle parking at San Carlos Train Station
Intersection of San Carlos Avenue and El Camino Real

ACT I ONS
Environmental Management Element
GENERAL PLAN 110
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Introduction
State law requires that a General Plan include both a
Conservation Element and an Open Space Element. This
General Plan combines these two elements into a single
Environmental Management Element that addresses
each element’s similar and overlapping concerns, and
satisfies the legal requirements for both.

State law identifies a series of topics which must be
addressed in the Conservation and Open Space
Elements. The Conservation Element is required to
address the conservation, development and utilization
of natural resources, including forests, rivers and other waters, fisheries, plants and wildlife, minerals and
Contents
112 Biological Resources
125 Open Space
127 Hydrology
133 Air Quality
140 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
149 Solid Waste
153 Community Involvement
The Environmental Management Element aims to protect, preserve and enhance natural resources in San Carlos. The Element identifies San Carlos’ important open space lands and ensures that future development will respect the natural and scenic qualities of those places, helping to shape the desired physical form of the community by safeguarding open space for future generations. The Environmental Management Element also provides direction on the conservation of biological resources in and near San Carlos, including plants and wildlife, as well as water and air quality. Additionally, the Element identifies ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste and suggests strategies for adaptation to climate change. 111 GENERAL PLAN
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
soils. The Open Space Element must address a range of
open space types, including six major categories of open space. Most of these types of open space are covered in this Environmental Management Element while a few
are covered elsewhere in this General Plan. Table 6-1
lists all six types of open space and identifies where they are addressed in this General Plan.

Not all required topics are discussed in this Element,
because they are included elsewhere in the General Plan or such resources do not exist in San Carlos. For
example, areas important for the preservation of historic and cultural resources are addressed in the Land Use
Element, and open space for public health and safety is primarily discussed in the Safety Element. San Carlos
does not have forest, fishery, agricultural, or mineral resources. Other federal and State laws require
communities to address air quality and the community
production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
solid waste and to develop impact reduction strategies.

To this end, the Environmental Management Element
includes the topics of air quality, GHG emissions and
solid waste.

Category Element Addressed In:

TABLE 6-1 GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN SPACE

CLASSIFICATIONS
Open Space for the Preservation of Natural Resources
Plant and animal habitat areas
Rivers, streams, lakes and their banks
Watershed lands
Areas required for ecological and
other scientific study purposes
Environmental Management
Environmental Management
Environmental Management
Environmental Management
Open Space Used for the Managed Production of Resources Agricultural lands and rangelands
Forest and timber lands
Mineral resource production areas
Not applicable to San Carlos
Not applicable to San Carlos
Not applicable to San Carlos
Open Space for Outdoor Recreation and Scenic Resources
Areas of outstanding historic or cultural Land Use
value
Parks and other areas used for Parks and Recreation
recreation
Areas of outstanding scenic value Land Use
Scenic corridors, trails and links Land Use
between different open space areas
Open Space for Public Health and Safety
Areas requiring special management or
regulation because of risks presented by Safety Element natural hazards such as steep slopes or flooding
Open Space in Support of the Mission of Military Installations Areas associated with military bases Not applicable to San Carlos Open Space for the Protection of Native American Sacred Sites
Local tribal lands
Any Native American cultural sites Land Use Element
GENERAL PLAN 112
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Biological Resources
The following section provides background information
pertaining to biological resources in San Carlos. The
background information supports the goals and policies
related to biological resources, which are also included in this section.

Background Information
This section includes background information on
natural vegetative communities, special status plants
and wildlife, wetlands, riparian habitat and soil types in and near San Carlos.

Natural Communities in San Carlos
Although native vegetation within San Carlos has been
substantially altered, the presence of large areas of
undeveloped lands to the west and the remaining
riparian corridors along creeks contributes to a diverse assemblage of resident and migrant wildlife species. In general, each habitat differs in its relative value to
specific species and can be characterized by both
vegetation and dependent animal species, although
some wildlife species may utilize more than one habitat type. Figure 6-1 shows a general map of the vegetation
and
The Environmental Management Element is divided
into three sections:

Background Information: Provides information
on the existing conditions of biological
resources, hydrology, air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions and solid waste.

Guiding Principles: Provides a framework and
establishes the basic intent of the element and
are a broad statement of overall community
value relating to environmental management in
San Carlos.

Goals, Policies and Actions: Provides policy
guidance for protecting and preserving
important resources covered in this Element,
mentioned above.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 113
habitat types based on CalVeg mapping by the U.S.

Forest Service.

The habitat types found within and around San Carlos
all provide different ecological functions and value. The more common habitat types are outlined below:
 Non-vegetated and sparsely vegetated habitat. Most of the non-vegetated and sparsely vegetated habitat
areas are located east of Alameda de las Pulgas as
shown on Figure 6-1.
 Aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitat includes streams,
ponds, lakes and bay shoreline that provide
habitat to a variety of birds, amphibians, fish and
mammals.
 Wetlands. Wetlands are areas that are periodically
or permanently inundated by surface or ground
water and support vegetation adapted to life in
saturated soil. Wetlands provide habitat to fish
and wildlife and provide stormwater, flood and
water recharge, filtration and purification
functions. Seasonal wetlands are areas of
prolonged saturation that are dry during the
summer months. Wetlands tend to be present near
aquatic features such as creeks, lakes, or ponds
and along the bayshore, but also may be found
within seasonal swales or isolated depressions
such as a low spot in the ground. Wetlands and
major waterbodies in and near San Carlos are
shown in Figure 6-2. Although there are only
documented areas of wetlands near the eastern
city border, it is likely that these features exist in
other areas of the city and its SOI.
 Riparian habitats. Riparian habitat is a distinct
plant community found along the margins of
creeks and rivers. It has a very high value to
wildlife and generally exhibits a rich and diverse
animal community. Although mostly urbanized,
Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont and Cordilleras Creeks
support areas of riparian habitat. However, the
scale of the riparian habitat area is too small to be
shown in Figure 6-1.
 Oak woodland. Oak woodland habitat consists of
patches of several or more mature trees frequently
dominated by California coast live oak and valley
oak. Some areas of oak woodland habitat also
support a dense understory shrub layer of
vegetation that includes coyote brush, poison oak,
California coffeeberry, Himalayan blackberry and
California rose. Several types of
Shorew
Belmont

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
116 GENERAL PLAN
oak woodland are shown on Figure 6-1. This
habitat is found in small patches in single-family
neighborhoods and concentrated in open space
and park areas.
 Annual grassland. The majority of grassland
habitat in San Carlos is rather low-quality
grassland dominated by annual, non-native
upland grasses and forbs.
 Scrub. Scrub habitat in the San Carlos area is
characterized by Chamise-Redshank Chapparal.

Scrub is found in some of the upland open space
and park areas.

Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species in San Carlos
San Carlos’ hilly, densely vegetated open space areas
and proximity to the San Francisco Bay provide
potential habitat for a variety of sensitive plant or
wildlife species. As of February 2009, the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), an inventory of
rare plants and animals in California, identified no
occurrences of sensitive species or habitats in the urban areas of San Carlos. However, known occurrences of
sensitive species are documented nearby. Specifically,
the dusky footed woodrat is known to be located on, or
in the immediate vicinity of an area at the western end of Devonshire Boulevard, and the highest
concentrations of nests occurring in riparian, coast live oak woodland and chaparral dominated by chamise
and toyon. Circles around these point locations, using
radii given in the CNDDB, are drawn on Figure 6-3.

Sensitive habitat, plants and wildlife found within the city limit and SOI are summarized in Table 6-2.

Coastal salt marsh and wetland habitat near the San
Carlos Airport, but outside the city limit and SOI, are known to support sensitive species. Water birds such as the endangered California clapper rail and threatened
western snowy plover could potentially be present in
areas adjacent to the San Carlos Airport. There is also potential for the federal endangered salt marsh harvest mouse to occur in these areas, particularly in places with cordgrass or alkali brush.

The San Francisco garter snake, California red-legged
frog, California tiger salamander and dusky footed
wood rat all have potential to occur in open space areas in and around San Carlos. The San Francisco garter
snake, a federal endangered species, typically resides in densely vegetated ponds near exposed hillsides where
they can sun themselves, feed and find cover in

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
118 GENERAL PLAN
Species Habitat Status
Habitat
Serpentine Bunchgrass n/a Recognized as a sensitive community by CDFG Plants
Arcuate bush-mallow Chaparral and coastal scrub on dry slopes CNPS List 1B (rare, threatened or endangered in California) Crystal Springs lessingia Mixed woodlands, oak woodlands, valley and foothill grasslands, coastal scrub on serpentine soils CNPS List 1B (rare, threatened or endangered in California) Davidson’s bush-mallow Coastal scrub CNPS 1B (rare, threatened or endangered in California) Serpentine benchgrass Serpentine soils Recognized as a sensitive community by CDFG Insects
Bay checkerspot butterfly Serpentine rock outcrops and serpentine soils Federally threatened Edgewood Park micro-blind
harvestman
Serpentine rock outcrops and serpentine
grasslands Recognized as a species of special concern by CDFG Birds
Alameda song sparrow Tidal marsh Recognized as a species of special concern by CDFG California clapper rail Tidal marsh State and federally endangered western snowy plover Tidal salt, brackish freshwater marsh Federally threatened Mammals
Pallid bat Desert scrub with rocky outcrops, forested oak and pine regions Recognized as a species of special concern by CDFG Santa Cruz kangaroo rat Desert scrub and sandy hills Recognized as a species of special concern by CDFG San Francisco dusky footed
wood rat Chaparral and coastal scrub on dry slopes Recognized as a species of special concern by CDFG Notes: CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game; CNPS = California Native Plant Society Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), February 2009.

TABLE 6-2 SENSITIVE SPECIES FOUND IN THE CITY LIMIT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
rodent burrows. Often the prey of the San Francisco
garter snake, the California red-legged frog, a federal threatened species, occurs in areas of riparian
vegetation with deep, still, or slow-moving water. The
California tiger salamander, also a federal endangered
species, is found in vernal pools and seasonal ponds in grassland and low foothills. The dusty footed wood rat, a California species of concern, typically is found in
woodland areas with dense underbrush. Known
populations occur in the Devonshire SOI. Additionally,
native shrubs like the arcuate bush mallow, also known
to occur in the Devonshire SOI, could potentially occur in open space areas west of Alameda de las Pulgas.

Invasive Plants
Invasive plants are a concern throughout the Bay Area.

Detrimental effects from invasive plants particular to
urban areas include the displacement of native plants
and wildlife and increasing risk of exposure to wildfires and floods. Plants and trees such as the eucalyptus, Scotch and French broom and pampas grass increase
fire fuel loads and can also be highly flammable. Other invasive plants, such as the giant reed, can clog
stormwater systems, which can increase the risk of
flooding.

The California Invasive Plant Inventory or Invasive
Plants of California’s Wildlands can assist in
determining if a plant is an invasive species. Cal-IPC
ranks species as “High,” “Moderate,” or “Limited”
impact, and any species from these can be evaluated for potential threat to local habitat. Even species ranked as “Limited” impact for California as a whole can have
severe impacts in a particular county or property due to local history and site conditions.

Watersheds and Riparian Corridors
Natural drainage in San Carlos is divided into two main watersheds: Pulgas Creek and Cordilleras Creek.

Within the watersheds are Pulgas, Brittan, Belmont and
Cordilleras Creeks, which are the main drainage ways
through San Carlos emptying into San Francisco Bay.

Salt and brackish marshes are found near the terminus
of each of the creeks east of Highway 101. The upper
portions of these watersheds are generally
undeveloped, the middle sections are primarily
residential and the eastern portions are typically
commercial
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 119
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
120 GENERAL PLAN
and industrial. The quality of the watersheds is
discussed in Section D.1.c below.

The four creeks in San Carlos are identified in Figure 6-

2. Belmont Creek is located at the northern San Carlos
boundary in the East Side area. Belmont Creek flows
into Belmont Slough and O’Neill Slough.

Pulgas and Brittan Creeks are the two main creeks
within the City of San Carlos. The creeks have mostly
unhardened channels in the upper reaches and
hardened channels in the lower flatlands, where Brittan Creek joins Pulgas Creek via an underground conduit
(paralleling El Camino Real). Following the confluence
of Pulgas Creek and Brittan Creeks, the combined flow
drains into Smith Slough south of Bair Island.

Cordilleras Creek, the longest of the four creeks, defines the southern boundary of San Carlos, which is shared
with Redwood City. Cordilleras Creek, like the
combined Pulgas/Brittan Creek, also flows into San
Francisco Bay via Smith Slough. Similar to Pulgas and
Brittan Creeks, the upper reaches of the creek are mostly unhardened with hardened channels in the lower
flatlands.

The creeks discussed above are “losing creeks,”
meaning they are not recharged by groundwater.

Consequently, they are intermittent and generally flow
during the winter wet-weather season and from
irrigation runoff during the dry months.

Protecting the habitat functions of San Carlos’ streams and riparian corridors is a priority for the City. The
riparian protection ordinance regulates construction or other work performed in or near creeks. Exceptions to
this rule include placement of approved storm drainage outflows and removal of sedimentation.

Creek restoration and maintenance and tree and
vegetation replacement standards should further the
enhancement and protection of creeks.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 121
Goals, Policies and Actions
GOAL
EM-1
Protect natural habitat and other
biological resources.

POLICY EM-1.1 Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully
evaluated when considering development project
applications.Ensure that potential impacts to
biological resources and sensitive habitat are
carefully evaluated when considering
development project applications through the
preparation of a biological resources assessment
by a qualified biologist. Require such biological
resource assessments as part of project approval
for proposed development on sites that may
support special-status plant and animal species,
sensitive natural communities, important wildlife
corridors, riparian habitat, or regulated wetlands
and waters.

POLICY EM-1.2 Ensure that development is consistent with all federal, State and regional regulations for habitat
and species protection.

The Guiding Principles are a set of key objectives that articulate San Carlos’ core values relating to the
environment. The Guiding Principles of the
Environmental Management Element are:

Ensure natural resources are preserved,sustained
andmanaged through environmentalstewardship.

Support community health and wellnessthrough
sound environmental practice.

Empower the community to help protect the
environment through public awareness and
involvement.

Ensure that there is a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in
place at all times to address reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and manage the
impacts of climate change.

Endeavor to be amodel city of good conservation
and resource management practices.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
122 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY EM-1.3 Work to manage or eliminate nonnative invasive species from Cityowned property and open space.

POLICY EM-1..4 Protect and preserve the circadian cycle (the cycle of night and day) by limiting
sources of light during nighttime hours.

POLICY EM-1.5 Promote the preservation of native
species, habitat and vegetation types
and overall natural diversity.

ACTION EM-1.1 Continue to cooperate with local,
regional and State agencies involved
in protecting critical habitat.

ACTION EM-1.2 Seek grant funding for the removal of
invasive plants and installation of
native trees and shrubs.

ACTION EM-1.3 Use native plants wherever possible
on City-owned and controlled
property.

ACTION EM-1.4 Enforce rules and regulations in
public open space areas to minimize
the impacts of destructive activities.

ACTION EM-1.5 Require that new buildings and taller
structures that extend above the
existing surrounding urban fabric and
height of the tree canopy be designed
to minimize the potential risk of bird
collisions using input from the latest
bird-safe design guidelines and best
management practice strategies to
reduce bird strikes.

POLICY EM-2.1 Preserve and enhance riparian areas.

POLICY EM-2.2 Continue to enforce the City’s
Riparian Ordinance for all four of the
City’s creeks (Pulgas, Brittan,
Cordilleras and Belmont) and their
tributaries.

GOAL
EM-2
Promote healthy streams and riparian
corridors.

ACTIONS

POLICIES
Denotes synergy
with Climate Action
Plan
Note: The Climate
Action Plan
adopted in 2009
was replaced by a
new Climate
Mitigation and
Adaptation Plan
(CMAP) adopted
on September 27,
2021 (Resolution
No. 2021 – 094).

The CMAP calls for
reducing emissions
40 percent below
1990 levels by
2030 and 80
percent below
1990 levels by
2050.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 123
POLICY EM-2.3 Carefully evaluate the cumulative and
compounding impacts of incremental
creek encroachments.

POLICY EM-2.4 Restore culverted or buried channels
to their natural state wherever
feasible.

POLICY EM-2.5 Promote the establishment of native
vegetation and the removal of nonnative invasive plants in riparian areas.

POLICY EM-2.6 Encourage property owners to replace
fallen trees along waterways to
maintain an upper canopy of
vegetation. The species shall be as
approved by the City arborist.

Encourage use of trees native to the
area.

POLICY EM-2.7 Retain Pulgas, Brittan, Cordilleras and
Belmont Creek channels and their 100-
year floodplains wherever possible as
natural open space areas. These areas
are to function as storm drainage
facilities and as open space greenbelts
to support natural habitat.

POLICY EM-2.8 Participate and help coordinate with
neighboring jurisdictions’ watershed
management efforts.

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-2.3 Provide information to the public on
City regulations and best practices for
riparian corridor management.

ACTIONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
124 GENERAL PLAN
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.

ACTION EM-2.5 Explore availability of grant funding
for removal of invasive plants from
riparian areas and planting of native
and appropriate trees and shrubs.

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-3
Enhance the urban forest.

POLICY EM-3.1 Maintain and expand the urban
canopy with special emphasis on
protection of heritage trees.

POLICY EM-3.2 Review and amend the Zoning
Ordinance as needed to identify
barriers to the effective enhancement
of the urban forest and the protection
of heritage trees.

POLICY EM-3.3 Assist community groups with tree
planning efforts.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 125
ACTION EM-3.1 Implement Climate Action Plan
measures to require tree planting.

ACTION EM-3.2 Review and amend the Zoning
Ordinance as needed to identify barriers
to the effective enhancement of the urban
forest and the protection of heritage trees.

ACTION EM-3.3 Establish and implement a program to
protect existing and plant new trees at
city facilities, public parks and in public
planting strips and parking lots, working
with non-profit volunteer groups if
possible.

Open Space
This section contains background information on open
space areas in San Carlos. Also in this section are goals and policies related to open space.

Background Information
Open space is defined as undeveloped areas that are set aside for outdoor recreation, natural resource
preservation and the protection of public safety. Within San Carlos there are approximately 73 acres of open
space designated as a city park and an additional 86
acres of land designated as open space in the Land Use
Element. This acreage includes Chilton Park and undeveloped portions of Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park, but does not include other city parks that are developed for active use.

Open space near San Carlos but outside the city
boundary includes Peninsula Watershed lands, Pulgas
Ridge Open Space Preserve and Edgewood Park. Bair
Island is a significant open space area near the San
Carlos airport located within Redwood City, and is part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge. Bair Island consists of 2,600 acres of open space.

Including Bair Island, there are approximately 3,370
acres of open space in areas near San Carlos. Both
Figures 7-1 and 7-3 in the Parks and Recreation Element depict open space lands within and surrounding the
city.

ACT I ONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
126 GENERAL PLAN
Goals, Policies and Actions
GOAL
EM-4
Acquire, preserve, protect and restore
open space and enhance the public’s
ability to enter and enjoy open space.

POLICY EM-4.1 Retain existing public open space as
open space.

POLICY EM-4.2 Support an open space system that is
diverse in uses and opportunities and
includes natural function/wildlife
habitat as well as passive and
appropriate active recreation.

POLICY EM-4.3 Focus open space acquisition efforts
on the most environmentally sensitive
areas.

POLICY EM-4.4 Coordinate with Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District and other
agencies on planning and managing
public open space, including
management of the Pulgas Ridge Open
Space Preserve for public open space
use.

POLICY EM-4.5 Support the efforts of non-profit
organizations to expand and
manage protected open space.

POLICY EM-4.6 Establish public access to public open
space lands appropriate to the
character and conservation value of
the open space.

POLICY EM-4.7 Prohibit the sale of City-owned open
space properties.

ACTION EM-4.1 Seek additional funding sources,
including State and federal programs,
to finance open space acquisition,
restoration and management.

POLICIES

ACTIONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 127
ACTION EM-4.2 Review new development proposals for
opportunities to create open space.

ACTION EM-4.3 Establish and work to achieve City
standards for open space based on
population.

ACTION EM-4.4 Study the need for an Open Space
Ordinance.

ACTION EM-4.5 Encourage the development of riparian
open space areas for publicly-accessible,
low-impact recreation.

ACTION EM-4.6 Implement the approved Trails
Connection Plan.

Hydrology
This section contains background information and
goals, policies and actions related to water supply,
water quality and wastewater and stormwater services
in San Carlos.

Background Information
Water Supply
California Water Service Company (Cal Water), the
main water provider in the city, purchases water from
the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Water
consumed in San Carlos is from Cal Water’s Bayshore
district, the source of which is predominantly the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, located in the Sierra Nevada
mountains. While State law calls for water to come from other lower elevation reservoirs, Hetch Hetchy
continues to be the source for most of San Carlos’ water due to its higher water quality. The San Carlos water
infrastructure system includes 21 storage tanks and 29
booster pumps. Although Cal Water is the primary
water service provider in San Carlos, the Mid- Peninsula Water District also serves approximately 100 residential and commercial accounts in the city. Additionally, some properties rely on wells for the provision of water.

Cal Water encourages water conservation through
rebate programs, providing low flow shower heads at
no cost, distributing literature on conservation practices and giving talks at local schools. Cal Water does not
currently have a recycled water system in San Carlos,
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
128 GENERAL PLAN
but it does offer water recycling in other parts of the State and estimates that water recycling will likely be offered in San Carlos within the next few years.

Groundwater
The city is located within the San Mateo Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Mateo
Subbasin is bounded by the Westside Basin to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, San Francisquito Creek to the south and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west.

The Subbasin has two main water-bearing units: the
Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium and the Santa Clara
Formation. The alluvium is the most important waterbearing unit in the Subbasin, and most of the wells in the Subbasin draw water from the deeper aquifers of
this unit. A relatively shallow water table aquifer
overlies the aquifers in the lowland areas. Groundwater is commonly found at less than 5 feet below grade in
flatland areas.

Water Quality
Residents in San Carlos drink water from the Bayshore
District of Cal Water. Supply from this district exceeded water quality standards in 2007. Testing includes
primary and secondary standards. Primary
standards limit levels of contaminants in drinking
water. Secondary standards limit substances that affect the taste, odor, or appearance of water; five inorganic chemicals are identified: calcium, chloride, magnesium, sodium and sulfate. The 2007 Water Quality Report for
primary standards identified fluoride, halo acetic acids, trihalomethanes, chloramine, copper and lead. None of
the identified substances in either category exceed
public health standards.

The health of the watersheds in San Carlos, described in the Biological Resources section of this Element, is
typical of urbanized areas. Upland sections of the creeks tend to have less pollution while urbanized portions of the waterways contain contaminants. Various
contaminants have been identified in San Carlos creeks
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which can
persist in the tissues of animals found in the creeks, as well as ultimately pollute the Bay. The City considers
the habitat functions of streams and riparian corridors a priority and, therefore, developed watershed protection mechanisms such as creek setbacks, regulations for
construction adjacent to creeks and pesticide
application in watershed areas. However, water from
local watersheds is not used for drinking in San Carlos. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 129
Wastewater
The Public Works Department operates and maintains
the wastewater collection system in the city. The Public Works wastewater system also serves several outside
sewer districts including Devonshire Canyon, Scenic
Heights, Emerald Lake and the unincorporated portion
of the Harbor Industrial Area. Properties in these areas are subject to an Outside Sewer Service Agreement with
the City of San Carlos. These proper- ties must be
located in the SOI and must demonstrate consistency
with applicable General Plan policies. In assigning
sewer service to these properties, the City will give
priority to single-family residences with failing septic tanks. Collected wastewater is delivered to a pump
station operated by the Silicon Valley Clean Waterouth
Bayside System Authority (SVCWBSA). This
wastewater is then pumped to the SVCWBSA treatment
plant, located in Redwood Shores, east of the city. There are 106 miles of sewer lines in San Carlos ranging in size from 5 to 27 inches. The average annual wastewater
flow for the City of San Carlos is about 2.6 million
gallons per day (MGD). Wastewater flows in San Carlos
have generally stayed constant despite increased
developmentdecreased in the last 13 years by 25 percent due to water conservation efforts and sewer main
replacement.

The SVCWBSA plant is a regional wastewater treatment
facility that serves San Carlos and the nearby
municipalities of Belmont, Redwood City, Menlo Park,
Portola Valley and portions of Atherton, Woodside, East Palo Alto and San Mateo County. Altogether, the
SVCWBSA plant serves over 200,000 customers. The
current capacity of the plant is 29 million gallons per day (MGD). The wastewater system has sufficient treatment
capacity to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Standards.

Stormwater
As mentioned above, there are two watersheds in San
Carlos: the Pulgas Creek Watershed and the Cordilleras
Creek Watershed. The creeks within the watersheds
and the city’s SOI that receive stormwater drainage
include Belmont, Pulgas Brittan and Cordilleras Creeks.

These creeks are unlined channels that eventually
empty into the San Francisco Bay. The creeks do not
have sufficient capacity to carry stormwater during high tides. In addition, flooding results from limited
upstream capacity for stormwater.

The City of San Carlos maintains all stormwater
facilities within the city. There are approximately 27
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
130 GENERAL PLAN
miles of closed conduits in the city that receive
stormwater drainage through 680 inlets. Stormwater
capacity within San Carlos varies based on calculated
need., with most storm drains accepting 100-year flood
events. The City of San Carlos operates approximately
6,500 linear feet of flood control channel with a capacity of over 500 cubic feet. The drainage system dates to the early twentieth century and, as such, does not meet
today’s design standards. Repairs are completed asneeded. Developers or property owners are responsible for adding extensions to the stormwater system when
new development occurs.

San Carlos participates in San Mateo County’s Stormwater Management Plan, which outlines maintenance activities to be undertaken by cities; targets industrial and illicit discharge; describes public information about stormwater; provides guidelines to cities for
construction permits; and establishes monitoring programs to measure the success of the other portions of the plan.

Goals, Policies and Actions
GOAL
EM-5
Assure a high level of domestic water
quality, promote water conservation and
reduce toxics in run-off, including stormwater and the sanitary sewer system.

POLICY EM-5.1 Reduce the discharge of toxic materials
into the city’s sanitary sewer and
stormwater collection system by
promoting the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs).

POLICY EM-5.2 Promote the use of less toxic household
and commercial cleaning materials.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 131
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.

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-5.8 Work with water service providers to
provide high quality domestic water.

POLICY EM-5.9 Sewer service may be extended
outside the city limit only as required
to protect public health due to failing
septic systems in accordance with the
following policies:
• Extension of sewer service would
be denied if there is insufficient
capacity in the wastewater
collection system.
• No change to the land use would
occur.
• The extension of sewer service
could not be used to enable further
subdivision.
• The property owner would be
required to annex as such time as a
complete consolidation of
properties could be annexed.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
132 GENERAL PLAN
• The property owner would be
required to complete all
improvements necessary to meet
City building and engineering
standards.
• Applicant to assure payment of all
sewer connection, plan checking
and inspection fees.

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
Fran- cisco 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-5.7 Amend the Municipal Code to codify
the Outside Sewer Service policies for
residential uses.

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.

ACT I ONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 133
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.

Air Quality
Air is a critical component of the natural environment
and the availability of clean, non-polluted air is an
important factor for human health and quality of life for San Carlos residents. The primary factors that determine air quality are the locations of air pollutant sources and the amount of pollutants emitted from those
sources. Meteorological and topographical conditions
are also important factors. Atmospheric conditions,
such as wind speed, wind direction and air temperature
gradients, interact with the physical features of the
landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of
air pollutants.

Regulatory Framework
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) governs air quality in
the United States. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California
CAA. At the federal level, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
administers the CAA. The California CAA is
administered by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) at the State level and by the Air Quality
Management Districts at the regional and local levels.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) regulates air quality at the regional level,
which includes the nine-county Bay Area.

United States Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal CAA.

The EPA is also responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS
are required under the 1977 federal CAA and
subsequent amendments. The EPA regulates emission
sources that are under the exclusive authority of the
federal government, such as vehicles, aircraft, ships and locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission
sources outside State waters (e.g. beyond the
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
134 GENERAL PLAN
outer continental shelf) and establishes various
emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in
California must meet the strict emission standards
established by the CARB.

California Air Resources Board
In California, the CARB, which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for
meeting the State requirements of the federal CAA,
administering the California CAA and establishing the
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

The California CAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally more stringent
than the corresponding federal standards and
incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles.

The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission
sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. The CARB established passenger vehicle
fuel specifications, which became effective in 1996.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Regional air quality is regulated by the BAAQMD. The
BAAQMD regulates stationary sources (with respect to
federal, State and local regulations), monitors regional air pollutant levels (including measurement of toxic air contaminants (TACs)), develops air quality control
strategies and conducts public awareness programs.

The BAAQMD has also developed CEQA Guidelines
that establish significance thresholds for evaluating new projects and plans and provide guidance to lead
agencies for evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans.

The BAAQMD is in the process of preparing the 2009
Bay Area Clean Air Plan which will update the Bay Area
2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with California CAA
requirements to implement “all feasible measures” to
reduce ozone. The 2009 Plan will also consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter, air toxics and GHGs. Additionally, the 2009 Bay Area
Clean Air Plan will review progress in improving air
quality in recent years and will establish emission
control measures to be adopted or implemented from
2009 through 2012. The Plan will also address PM10 and
PM2.5, defined below, as well as climate change.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 135
Criteria Air Pollutants and Effect
The CARB and the EPA currently focus on five “criteria
pollutants” as indicators of air quality and as such air quality studies generally focus on those five pollutants:

CO, O3, NO2, SO2 and suspended particulates (i.e. PM10
and PM2.5).
 Carbon Monoxide. CO, a colorless and odorless
gas, interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the
brain. It can cause dizziness and fatigue, and can
impair central nervous system functions. CO is
emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete
combustion of fossil fuels. CO is a non-reactive air
pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, so
ambient CO concentrations generally follow the
spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular
traffic. The highest CO concentrations measured
in the Bay Area are typically recorded during the
winter.
 Ozone. O3, a colorless toxic gas, is the chief component of urban smog. Short-term O3 exposure can reduce lung function in children, make persons susceptible to respiratory infection and produce symptoms that cause people to seek
medical treatment for respiratory distress. Longterm exposure can impair lung defense mechanisms and lead to emphysema and chronic
bronchitis. Al- though O3 is not directly emitted, it
forms in the atmosphere through a chemical
reaction between reactive organic gas (ROG) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) under sunlight. ROG and
NOx are primarily emitted from automobiles and
industrial sources. Highest O3 concentrations
occur during summer and early autumn, on days
with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm
temperatures and cloudless skies.
 Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2, a reddish-brown gas,
irritates the lungs. It can cause breathing
difficulties at high concentrations. Like O3, NO2 is
not directly emitted, but is formed through a
reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and
atmospheric oxy- gen. NO and NO2 are
collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOx)
and are major contributors to O3 formation. NO2
also contributes to the formation of PM10 (see
discussion of PM10 below).
 Sulfur Oxides. Sulfur oxides, primarily SO2, are a
product of high-sulfur fuel combustion. The main
sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power
stations, in industries and for domestic heating.

SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
136 GENERAL PLAN
throat and lungs. It can cause acute respiratory
symptoms and diminished ventilator function in
children. SO2 concentrations have been reduced to
levels well below the State and national standards,
but further reductions in emissions are needed to
attain compliance with standards for PM10, of
which SO2 is a contributor.
 Suspended Particulate Matter. Particulate matter
pollution consists of very small liquid and solid
particles suspended in the air, which can include
smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids and metals.

Particulate matter also forms when industry and
gaseous pollutant undergo chemical reactions in
the atmosphere. Respirable particulate matter
(PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
represent fractions of particulate matter. PM10
refers to particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter
that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Major
sources of PM10 include motor vehicles; wood
burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from
construction, landfills and agriculture; wildfires
and brush/ waste burning; industrial sources;
windblown dust from open lands; and
atmospheric chemical and photochemical
reactions. PM2.5 results
primarily from diesel fuel combustion (from
motor vehicles, power generation and industrial
facilities), residential fireplaces and wood stoves.
 PM10 and PM2.5 pose a greater health risk than
larger-size particles, because these tiny particles
can penetrate the human respiratory system’s
natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract
increasing the number and severity of asthma
attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other
lung diseases and reduce the body’s ability to fight
infections.

Toxic Air Contaminant Levels
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause
morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause
cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient
air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by
industry, agriculture, fuel combustion and commercial
operations (e.g. dry cleaners). Diesel exhaust is the most common source of TACs. TACs are typically found in
low concentrations, even near their source (e.g. benzene near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the
regional, State and federal level.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 137
Background
This section describes the San Carlos climate and
existing air quality conditions.

Climate
San Carlos is located in the western portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The basin includes the
counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo,
Marin, Napa, Contra Costa and Alameda, along with
the southeast portion of Sonoma County and the
southwest portion of Solano County. San Carlos is
located in the Peninsula climate subregion of the Bay
Area and the climate is characterized by warm dry
summers and cool moist winters.

Temperatures in San Carlos tend to be less extreme
compared to inland locations due to the moderating
effect of the Pacific Ocean and the Bay. In summer, high temperatures are generally in the high 70’s and in the
50's during winter. Low temperatures range from the
50's in summer to the 30's in winter.

Existing Air Quality Conditions
Air quality is affected by the rate of pollutant emissions and by meteorological conditions such as wind speed,
atmospheric stability and mixing height, all of which
affect the atmosphere's ability to mix and disperse
pollutants. Long-term variations in air quality typically result from changes in air pollutant emissions, while
short-term variations result from changes in
atmospheric conditions.

For the most part, San Carlos enjoys good air quality due to the almost persistent northwesterly flow of air.

Episodes of high particulate levels can occur in late fall and winter when high pressure systems produce
extended periods of light winds and low-level
temperature inversions. Although less common, this
pattern in summer can produce fair weather and very
warm temperatures throughout the Bay Area. This
condition frequently produces poor atmospheric mixing
that results in degraded regional air quality. Ozone
standards traditionally are exceeded in downwind
portions of the Bay Area when this condition occurs
during the warmer months of the year.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
138 GENERAL PLAN
In 2007, the BAAQMD operated a network of 27
permanent monitoring stations in the Bay Area. In
addition, CARB operated one station. These stations
monitored air pollutant levels continuously. The closest station is located in Redwood City at 897 Barren
Avenue.

Attainment Status
Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air
pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air
pollutant.

For the five criteria pollutants, attainment status is as follows:
 Carbon Monoxide. Maintaining CO standards for
over a decade and is classified attainment
maintenance by the EPA.
 Ozone. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet
State or federal ambient air quality standards for
ground level O3. This is non-attainment and is
considered serious by the State.
 Nitrogen Dioxide. The region is in attainment for
this pollutant.
 Sulfur Oxides. The region is in attainment for this
pollutant.
 Suspended Particulate Matter. The region does
not meet State standards for particulate matter
(both PM10 and PM2.5) and does not meet federal
standards for PM2.5.

Goals, Policies and Actions
GOAL
EM-6
Support atmospheric conditions that are
clean, healthful, provides maximum visibility
and meets air quality standards.

POLICY EM-6.1 Support and comply with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management
District, State and federal standards and
policies that improve air quality in the
Bay Area.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 139
POLICY EM-6.2 Support and encourage commercial
uses to adopt environmentally friendly
technologies and reduce the release
of pollutants.

POLICY EM-6.3 Support the reduction of emissions of
particulates from wood burning
appliances, construction activity,
automobiles, trucks and other
sources.

POLICY EM-6.4 Implement Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD)
guide- lines that establish minimum
screening or buffer distances between
emissions sources and sensitive
receptors. Exceptions may be made for
projects that do not meet the distance
requirements but can be determined
compatible with adjacent uses through
a project-specific study that determines
potential health risk. Mitigation
measures shall be required to reduce
these risks to acceptable levels.

POLICY EM-6.5 Consider potential impacts from land
uses that may emit pollution and/or
odors when locating air pollution
sources near sensitive receptors. Air
pollution sources could include freeways, industrial uses, hazardous materials storage, waste
disposal/transfer stations and other
similar uses.

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-6.1 Require review by appropriate
agencies of development applications
that may create potential air quality
impacts to assure compliance with
relevant regulations.

ACT I ONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
140 GENERAL PLAN
ACTION EM-6.2 Provide information to the public on
Best Management Practices including
low emission alternatives to wood
burning appliances.

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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Background
This section contains background information and
goals, policies and actions related to GHG emissions.

Climate Action Plan
The City is taking a proactive approach in addressing
GHG emission reduction by developing a Climate
Action Plan (CAP) in concert with this General Plan.

Ad- dressing climate change in this manner defines San
Carlos as an innovative member of the local government
community. Key components of the CAP are integrated
into the General Plan. The General Plan goals,
policies and actions reinforce the CAP. The CAP is
intended to be updated on a more regular basis than the General Plan, ensuring that implementation of the City
efforts to assure GHG emissions are in compliance with
current regulation. This approach is especially
important given the constant flux of new research
findings, technological improvements and policy
updates dealing with climate change.

Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The community GHG emission inventory found that an
estimated 267,237 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) were released in 2005, the baseline
year. The largest source of emissions was the
transportation sector, with approximately 56 percent of all emissions. The commercial/industrial/municipal
sec- tor produced approximately 20 percent, the
residential sector amounted to approximately 18
percent, and the waste sector released nearly 5 percent of the community’s GHG emissions. City operations
account for approximately 0.6 percent of the GHG
emissions.

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Inventory found that if San Carlos continues to
release GHGs at its 2005 rate, the community’s
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 141
emissions will increase to 365,787 metric tons per year by 2030. That would be an increase of nearly 37 percent over a span of 25 years. The increase can be attributed to estimated increases in population, consumption,
households and commercial activity.

Climate Change Strategies and Adaptations
To achieve a 15 percent reduction of the baseline by 2020 and 35 percent reduction by 2035, the CAP pro- vides a
strategic policy focus on five areas: Building
Efficiency/Site Design; Auto Emission Reduction; Low
Carbon Energy Use; Alternative, Non-Automotive
Travel Modes; and a Waste Reduction program. In total,
the Plan includes 23 broad-based goals and 42 reduction measures. Each reduction measure is tied to a target
whereby a specific number of metric tons CO2e would
be reduced per year.

The climate action goals and measures in the CAP are
separated into three chapters for analysis in the CAP:

Energy, Transportation and Land Use and Solid waste.

In the General Plan, these goals and measures for
transportation and land use are also reflected in the
Housing and Land Use Elements. For instance, increased housing density near transit not only reduces emissions through reduced energy consumption
through the sharing of walls, air conditioning/heating
units and infrastructure, but it also reduces residents’ vehicle miles traveled, achieving emission reduction in the transportation sector.

Also included in the CAP and carried forward into the
General Plan are adaptation strategies that may be
necessary as the climate changes and sea levels rise.

Adaptation measures are important in order to allow
the community to proactively prepare for potential
effects. The challenge will be reducing the effects to the lowest level possible and ensure that the community is
pre- pared. Adaptation strategies are also included in
the Community Safety and Services Element of the
General Plan.

Open Space in San Carlos
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
142 GENERAL PLAN
Goals, Policies and Actions
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-7.1 Take appropriate action to address
climate change and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.

POLICY EM-7.2 Monitor and participate in federal,
State and regional policies and
directives relating to climate change,
and make adjustments to City policies
and programs as appropriate.

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-7.4 Utilize the expertise of regional,
State and federal agencies when
developing, revising and
implementing greenhouse gas
reduction strategies.

POLICY EM-7.5 Ensure consistency with the San
Carlos Climate Action Plan through
adjustment of City policies,
programs, and actions as appropriate.

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.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 143
POLICY EM-7.7 Collaborate with stakeholders and
volunteers in the formulation and
implementation of greenhouse gas
reduction strategies.

ACTION EM-7.1 Implement strategies in the Climate
Action Plan to achieve the greenhouse
gas reduction target.

ACTION EM-7.2 Develop criteria for reviewing all
proposed projects within the city to
determine consistency with the
Climate Action Plan (CAP) and review
projects meeting the identified criteria
to ensure consistency with the CAP.

ACTION EM-7.3 Update the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
every five years, including but not
limited to:
a. A revised greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions inventory;
b. An overview of new knowledge on
the causes and anticipated impacts of
climate change;
c. Collaborate with stakeholders and volunteers to
assist in the preparation and implementation of
the effective CAP.
d. An assessment of the appropriate- ness and
adequacy of San Carlos’ GHG reduction target;
e. A summary of the quantified cost per metric ton
of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced per
emission re- duction measure;
f. An evaluation of the effectiveness of existing
programs; and
f.g. Considerations for the use of low-carbon and
sustainable materials to reduce embodied carbon
in construction and to meet GHG reduction
target(s); and
g.h.Modifications to goals, policies and strategies as
needed to achieve the GHG reduction target.

ACTION EM-7.4 Develop and implement a comprehensive outreach program that works with locally-based
organizations and volunteers to educate the public
about the Climate Action Plan and greenhouse gas
reduction strategies and programs.

ACTIONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
144 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
EM-8
Prepare for the potential impacts of
climate change through the adoption of
adaptation and resiliency strategies.

POLICY EM-8.1 Adjust the Climate Action Plan as
necessary to comply with current law
and new threats to the community
that may develop as a result of climate
change.

POLICY EM-8.2 Partner with neighboring communities
and regional agencies to develop and
implement regional adaptation
programs.

ACTION EM-8.1 Update the Climate Action Plan every
five years to re-evaluate projections for
climate change threats and the
appropriateness of adaptation and
resiliency strategies.

ACTION EM-8.2 Incorporate climate change threats into
the City’s Emergency Incident Plan and
Emergency Operations Center training.

ACTION EM-8.3 Cooperate with regional agencies and
partner with neighboring communities
to prepare for and mitigate coastal
inundation as a result of sea level rise.

View of San Francisco Bay from San Carlos hills

POLICIES

ACT I ONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 145
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-9.3 Emphasize energy conservation in
local government housing assistance
programs.

POLICY EM-9.4 Provide outreach to residents,
businesses and property owners on
incentives, regulations and programs
to in- crease energy efficiency.

POLICY EM-9.5 Design all new construction and major
remodels of government agency
buildings to relevant green building
standards.

POLICY EM-9.6 Encourage new private construction
and major remodels to be designed
to meet or exceed Green Uniform
Building Code requirements.

POLICY EM-9.7 Implement energy efficiency in City
owned and operated facilities to
reduce municipal energy costs and
serve as a model for the community.

ACTION EM-9.1 Implement measures in the Climate
Action Plan intended to reduce
energy consumption.

POLICIES

ACTIONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
146 GENERAL PLAN
ACTION EM-9.2 Adopt a Green Building Code as called
for in the Climate Action Plan.

ACTION EM-9.3 Review and amend the Zoning
Ordinance to identify and reduce
barriers to the establishment of on-site
energy generators.

ACTION EM-9.4 Integrate energy cost reduction
measures into City’s facilities where
feasible.

ACTION EM-9.5 Encourage energy efficiency audits and
upgrades of facilities to which the City
provides funding, including the fire
department and sewage service.

ACTION EM-9.6 Periodically investigate funding resources available to assist the City in energy conservation or on-site energy
production at City facilities.

POLICY EM-10.1 Promote consumption of food
grown in the local region.

POLICY EM-10.2 Support the establishment of
community gardens, especially
within established residential
neighborhoods, encouraging
organic, edible plants.

POLICY EM-10.3 Encourage neighborhood grocery
stores, farmers markets and food
assistance programs to increase
their use of locally
grown/prepared goods.

GOAL
EM-10
Promote local food production and
distribution systems

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 147
POLICY EM-10.4 Encourage institutions, such as
schools, hospitals, colleges,
government agencies and businesses
to provide foods produced locally and
in the region. Encourage and support
active school garden programs.

POLICY EM-10.5 Encourage residents to grow produce.

ACTION EM-10.1 Support the establishment of organic,
edible food gardens on commercial,
public and quasi-public properties.

ACTION EM-10.2 Consider utilizing undeveloped City
property for urban agricultural uses
where appropriate.

GOAL
EM-11
Promote and expand public and
alternative modes of transportation.

POLICY EM-11.1 Encourage and support maximum
allowable density Transit Oriented
Development projects within
Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3.

POLICY EM-11.2 Work with transit service providers to
increase the frequency, reliability and
quality of transit service.

POLICY EM-11.3 Support the addition of amenities, such
as bus shelters and directional signage,
to promote increased transit ridership.

ACTIONS

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
148 GENERAL PLAN
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-11.5 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-11.6 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-11.8 Promote a car sharing program.

POLICY EM-11.9 Coordinate with major employers,
neighboring municipalities, transit
agencies and providers to enhance
regional transit and shuttle service.

POLICY EM-11.10 Evaluate and encourage new forms of
mass transit.

POLICY.EM-11.11 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to
create a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Ordinance that
contains strategies to reduce vehicle
trips.

POLICY EM-11.12 Include in the Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance a
requirement that new office
development over a certain size
include showers and safe and secure
bike racks to encourage employees to
bicycle to work.

ACTION EM-11.1 Implement measures in the Climate
Action Plan to reduce transportation
emissions.

ACTION EM-11.2 Implement traffic calming devices to
increase roadway safety for bicycles
and pedestrians.

ACTIONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 149
ACTION EM-11.3 Design streets to accommodate all
modes of transportation, including
emergency vehicles, and provide for
a safe and attractive pedestrian
experience.

ACTION EM-11.4 Coordinate with neighboring
jurisdictions, the County and
regional agencies to expand bicycle
connections to regional destinations.

ACTION EM-11.5 Encourage transit providers to utilize
vehicles with low polluting
technologies and to reduce or eliminate
idling.

Solid Waste
This section provides background information about
solid waste providers in San Carlos and goals, policies and actions related to solid waste.

Background
Waste Haulers
Solid waste and recyclables are collected within the city by a provider contracted through the South Bay Waste
Management Authority (SBWMA). This is a joint
powers agreement with 12 member agencies. San Carlos
solid waste and recyclables are initially taken to the
Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center (SRDC) which
receives about 150 tons per day (five-day average) of solid waste and 62 tons per day of recyclables from the city.

SBWMA is currently in the selection process for a new
contract to begin on January 1, 2011. The selected
provider will be a recycling and solid waste services
management company that provides residential and
commercial collection, transfer, recycling and
composting. In addition, the provider will be responsible for household hazardous waste disposal. In March 2009,
the City began a food scraps program that works in concert with the yard waste recycling program. It is an innovative program in that it encourages the recycling of household food scraps including paper products
contaminated with food waste that have previously been
omitted from the recycling chain. The Feed the Pail, Feed the Planet food waste program is an integral part of the Waste Management Authority's goal of reducing the
amount of household waste that is sent to the landfill. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
150 GENERAL PLAN
Waste Generation and Diversion Rates
In 1989, California passed the Waste Management Act
which requires municipalities to divert 50 percent of
their waste from landfills. Between 1999 and 2004, San
Carlos was unable to reach the 50 percent diversion
goal. According to the San Mateo Recycle Works program, however, San Carlos improved the diversion rate by 42 percent in 2005 and by 47 percent in 2006. The
City’s enhanced efforts to enforce a construction and
demolition Ordinance are expected to improve the
division rate in 2009 by 60 percent.

Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center
The SBWMA runs the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal
Center (SRDC), located on the border of San Carlos and
Redwood City. The SRDC is a solid waste transfer
station and material recovery facility with a permitted operating capacity of 3,000 tons per day.

There are plans to reconfigure the transfer station and build a new recycling facility capable of handling a
single stream recycling program for San Carlos and the
11 partner agencies that use this facility. This reconfiguration will increase the level of recycling in San Carlos and help the City meet its 50 percent recycling
goal under AB 939.

Landfills
The majority of the solid waste collected in San Carlos is transported to the Ox Mountain Landfill in Half Moon
Bay. The landfill, owned and operated by Allied Waste,
is expected to reach capacity in 2023. In 2007, a total of 603,160 tons of solid waste was disposed at the Ox
Mountain Landfill, of which 34,670 tons (or 5.74 percent) came from San Carlos.

Recycling
Acceptable residential recyclable material includes
plant materials, mixed paper, plastic (#1-7), aluminum
and bi-metal cans, glass, used motor oil, batteries and cell phones. Commercial recycling includes plastic,
glass, cardboard, mixed office paper, food scraps and
plant materials.

In 2006, the City of San Carlos collected 2,732 tons of recyclable material. San Carlos recently participated in a pilot program to collect household batteries and cell phones. This program is now being expanded to other
cities within the jurisdiction of the South Bayside
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 151
Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), of which San
Carlos is a member.

Composting
In March 2009, San Carlos instituted a food scrap and
yard trimming program. Single-family home residents
are able to compost food scraps and yard trimmings.

Future Expansion of Services
SBWMA is conducting a procurement process to
implement a comprehensive array of new solid waste
and recycling collection services beginning January 1,
2011. The new services will convert the residential
collection services to a cart-based program with weekly collection for solid waste, recyclables and organics
(plant materials and food scraps). Residents will also be able to fully commingle all recyclables (paper, glass,
plastics and metals) in the cart along with recycling a wider variety of materials including used oil, oil filters and household batteries and cell phones.

The SRDC facility will also undergo substantial
renovation and environmental enhancements in
preparation for the rollout of new collection services
to be completed Fall 2010. New features include a new
material recovery facility, expanded transfer stations
and a new environmental education center. These
facility improvements will result in a new material
recovery facility that will handle a 20,000 ton per year increase from residential and commercial customers.

Goals, Policies and Actions
GOAL
EM-12
Reduce solid waste disposal and increase
recycling.

POLICY EM-12.1 Work with the local waste
management authority to increase
community diversion of solid waste
that meets or exceeds the targeted rate
in the Climate Action Plan.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
152 GENERAL PLAN
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.

ACTION EM-12.1 Implement measures in the Climate
Action Plan to reduce solid waste and
increase recycling and reuse.

ACTION EM-12.2 Consider incentives to households
and businesses to reduce the
volume of solid waste sent to the
landfill.

ACTION EM-12.3 Require adequate facilitation of
recycling in all new development and
new commercial tenancies.

ACTION EM-12.4 Encourage recycling programs in
existing multi-family buildings.

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.

ACTION EM-12.8 Evaluate options for increasing ease of
properly disposing household
hazardous waste, including but not
limited to electronics, fluorescent
bulbs, thermometers, spent fire
extinguishers and pharmaceuticals.

ACT I ONS
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 153
Community Involvement in
Environmental Management
This section includes background information on
community involvement in environmental
management and goals, policies and actions related to
public awareness and public participation in
environmental issues.

Background Information
The City of San Carlos is committed to working with
residents to address environmental issues. Part of the
public process includes outreach efforts to engage the
public on the issues at hand, and public participation
opportunities including workshops, study sessions and
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The
City values the expertise its residents possess on the
environmental issues affecting the city. Citizens are
encouraged to participate in committees and other
forums to make sure that local knowledge and expertise
informs environmental policies and programs.

Examples of past opportunities to address
environmental issues in San Carlos include the Natural
Resources Task Force and the Flooding, Land Use and
Creeks Ad Hoc Committee. More recently, San Carlos
Green has
been an active collaborator in the area of promoting the urban forest, recycling and the CAP.

Goal, Policies and Actions
GOAL
EM-13
Increase public awareness of environmental
issues and promote public participation in
environmental policymaking and programs.

POLICY EM-13.1 Encourage the active participation of
residents, businesses, and other
stakeholders in the City’s
environmental programs.

POLICY EM-13.2 Support the efforts of local non-profit
organizations involved in protecting
the natural environment.

POLICIES
6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
154 GENERAL PLAN
POLICY EM-13.3 Support the expansion of
environmental education programs
and curriculum.

ACTION EM-13.1 Provide information about the City’s
environmental issues, goals and programs to the public on a regular basis.

ACTION EM-13.2 Provide the community with
information on City policies and
practices that support good
conservation and re- source
management.

ACTION EM-13.3 Evaluate the development of an
environmental sustainability
implementation plan.

ACTION EM-13.4 Continue to encourage local
businesses to utilize sustainable
practices.

ACTION EM-13.5 Encourage the development of a
committee or commission to serve as
a permanent citizen’s advisory
committee to aid the City with
developing and implementing
environmental management policies,
researching best practices, researching
available support and funding options
and presenting program and code
proposals to the City.

ACTION EM-13.6 Actively seek outside grants, donations, tax relief, or other sources of funding to
minimize City costs associated with
achieving natural resource goals.

Open space near San Carlos

ACT I ONS
Parks and Recreation Element
156 GENERAL PLAN
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Introduction The Parks and Recreation Element is closely related to the City’s Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings, and other Recreational Facilities, adopted in August 2008. The Master Plan establishes a long-term vision for San Carlos’ park facilities, identifies specific improvements to the existing park system and presents a strategy for funding capital improvements, operation and maintenance. The Parks and Recreation Element establishes a broad policy framework to support the Master Plan. The Master Plan also contains detailed existing conditions information that is the foundation for the goals and policies in this Element. A Parks and Recreation Element is an optional element of the General Plan and is not required by State law. The decision by the City of San Carlos to include this Element in the General Plan shows the City’s commitment to providing, protecting and enhancing San Carlos’ public parks and recreational Contents
Introduction Existing Setting
City Parks Open Space Trails Recreational Programs Funding Sources Guiding Principles Goals, Policies and Actions
The Parks and Recreation Element addresses parks, open space, trails and recreational activities available to residents and visitors to San Carlos. This element provides information and policy guidance to ensure adequate provision of parks and recreational opportunities in the City of San Carlos.

GENERAL PLAN 157
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
opportunities. The City recognizes that parks and recreation are important amenities in San Carlos and contribute to a high quality of life for all city residents. Existing Setting This section describes existing parks, open space, trails and recreation programs in San Carlos.

City Parks San Carlos residents enjoy a total of 16 public parks located throughout the city. Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-3 show park locations and Table 7-1 identifies their size and provides a description of each park. San Carlos parks occupy approximately 135 acres within the city limit. Park amenities include multi-use athletic fields, basketball and tennis courts, a dog park, playground equipment, jogging paths, hiking trails, children’s play areas and passive recreation areas.

Ball Fields at Laureola Park
The information in this element is organized into three sub-sections:

Existing Setting: Contains information on existing parks and recreational opportunities in the City of San Carlos. Guiding Principles: Establishes the key objectives that guide policies in the Parks and Recreation Element. Goals, Policies and Actions: Provides guidance to the City regarding parks and recreation decisions. 7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
158 GENERAL PLAN
Park Name Acreage Description
Arguello Park 21.0
Arguello Park is the largest and most diverse of the developed parks with a turfed play area, picnic locations, a running trail and unmarked hiking trails. The park was recently renovated in 2006. Tennis courts are located on adjacent school property.a Big Canyon Park 16.0 Big Canyon Park is a beautiful and rustic open space area. The 1.2-mile trail in the park is rugged, hilly and narrow with great views of the City and the East Bay. Burton Park 10.3 Burton Park is the oldest and best known of the developed parks. It currently contains Madsen softball diamond, used by adult softball leagues, little leagues, soccer teams and other baseball teams; a large soccer field; three lighted tennis courts, two full basketball courts; two horseshoe pits; the Kiwanis Recreation Building; two children’s play areas; park benches; picnic tables; barbecue pits and a turfed play area. The park playground was recently renovated and other renovations are planned in the future.

Cedar Park 0.6 Cedar Park has a small turf area, children’s play area, asphalt basketball court/multi-use section, park benches, picnic table and barbecue pit. Chilton Avenue/ Sequoia Court 1.6 Chilton Avenue/Sequoia Court is an undeveloped hill area. There is an excellent view of the canyon and surrounding area from the western boundary and another great view of San Carlos and the East Bay from the middle of the property. Children enjoy climbing on a major rock outcropping located on the slope leading down to Bay View. No park improvements have yet been developed on this site.

City Hall Park 1.3 City Hall Park is centrally located in the downtown area. It attracts mainly passive forms of recreation, but contains a turf area large enough for active games and play. Crestview Park 7.0 Crestview is one of the newest City parks and it is frequently used by soccer players, neighboring families and jogging and walking enthusiasts. The park facilities include a soccer field, basketball courts, children’s play area, paved area with stanchions making it accessible for volleyball play and a jogging/walking path.

Eaton Park 57.6
Eaton Park is a beautiful, natural open space with meandering trails, natural vegetation and varied wildlife. It is undeveloped except for a trail, which winds its way up the hillside toward Loma Lane and a 4H facility. A fire access road winds its way to the top of the park as well.

Heather Dog Exercise Area 1.5 The park is used by dog owners and their pets. There is also a trail in the southern part of the park with a great view through the canyon. Highlands Park 11.2 The complex is used for year-round athletic events, including baseball, soccer, softball, tennis and sports camps, as well as for neighborhood recreational activities including a children’s play area.

TABLE 7-1 SAN CARLOS CITY PARKS
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 159
Park Name Acreage Description
Hillcrest Circle Park 0.2
The park contains a children's play area, half-court basketball court, picnic bench, barbecue pit and drinking fountain. The park attracts neighborhood youth that frequent the play areas, the basketball court and other “free play” sections of the asphalt. The park was recently renovated.

Laurel Street Park 0.3
The park is utilized by shoppers as a resting spot before further shopping and by customers of adjacent restaurants. The park is used annually for a portion of the Chamber of Commerce Art and Wine Festival, the Sister City Committee’s “Taste of Italy,” concerts in the park and the Kiwanis Club’s annual toy drive.

Laureola Park 2.6
This neighborhood park gets a variety of uses throughout the year. Little League baseball uses the field area in the spring and the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) makes use of the entire turf area in the fall. In addition, residents utilize the turf, basketball court and the children's play area regularly. The Special Needs Program is the main tenant of the recreation building year-round, but the building is also used for other special interest classes and community groups.

North Crestview 4.3
This is currently an undeveloped park site, located across the street from Vista Park. It was originally acquired by the City for development of a vehicular connection between Highway 280 and Crestview Drive, which was never constructed. The site is steeply sloping up from the street, thus making access difficult. The site offers magnificent views eastward across the Bay. It borders the open space area owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Opportunities exist to connect to adjacent trail systems via the North Crestview site.

Rosek Park 0.2 This triangular-shaped parcel is primarily a turf area with a large oak tree. The park is occasionally used by neighborhood children for free play and by adults as a picnic or resting area. San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park

0.3 The park is a reasonably-utilized facility, primarily attracting neighborhood children and adult chaperones. It currently contains a swing set, park benches, barbecue pit, small turf area, drinking fountain and climbing apparatus.

Vista Park 3.8
Vista Park, landscaped with native vegetation, has walking paths, park benches, trash receptacles and picnic tables. The park has a magnificent view to the east. It is presently used by local resident walkers, pet owners and passive users. a Parks Master Plan will complete future Arguello Park improvements. Source: City of San Carlos, 2007.

TABLE 7-1 SAN CARLOS CITY PARKS (CONTINUED)
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
160 GENERAL PLAN
The City has identified the need to acquire land to expand existing parks and to develop new City parks. The acquisition of new parkland has been considered for the areas east of El Camino Real, Devonshire Canyon and the Civic Center area. Additionally, an offleash dog exercise area and a skate park have also been considered. There are also planned expansions and improvements for many City parks, including Arguello, Burton and Highland parks. Figure 7-1 provides information to facilitate future decisions about park and open space land acquisition. This map identifies the following categories of land: City parks and open spaces, publicly-owned vacant land, privately-owned vacant land and privatelyowned designated open space. Service Standards It is the City’s goal to provide 2.5 acres of developed/ active parks for every 1,000 residents in San Carlos. This service standard is stated as Policy 1.1 of this Element. Currently the City provides 2.3 acres of developed/active parks for every 1,000 residents.

Walkability Policy A goal of the Parks and Recreation Department is to locate a park or recreational facility within ½-mile of every resident. This goal is stated as Policy 1.2 of the General Plan. Residences that are more than ½-mile from a City park are shown on Figure 7-2. Approximately 90 percent of existing residential parcels in San Carlos are within ½-mile of a park or recreational facility.

Open Space
San Carlos residents have access to a variety of open space areas. Open space areas are lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, open space and public education. Open space areas provide for passive recreation with trails, views, natural vegetation, wildlife and environmental educational facilities. Open space areas in the vicinity of San Carlos are listed in Table 7-2. These areas are owned and operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MPROSD), San Mateo County and the State Department of Fish and Game. 7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 161

PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT 7
Open Space Acreage Description
MPROSD manages 26 open space preserves totaling over 57,000 acres. The three closest MPROSD preserves are Pulgas Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods and Teague Hill, with Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve located within San Carlos’ SOI. San Mateo County manages five regional parks, the largest being 467-acre Edgewood Preserve, located approximately 3 miles south of San Carlos. The State Department of Fish and Game runs Bair Island, a 1,985-acre Ecological Preserve within the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, located adjacent to San Carlos in the wetlands of San Francisco Bay. The Peninsula Watershed owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission lies west of and adjacent to the Pulgas Ridge SOI. A 19,000-acre Scenic Easement and a 4,000-acre Scenic and Recreation Easement overlay the Peninsula Water shed. Open space within San Carlos includes Big Can yon Park, Eaton Park and land designated as open space in this General Plan. The open space facilities controlled or operated by the City are essentially unimproved or in their natural state with minimal or no aboveground improvements provided by the City, other than trails and trail heads.

GENERAL PLAN 163
TABLE 7-2 OPEN SPACE AREAS
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MPROSD) Pulgas Ridge 366 6 miles of developed trails, various trails and one wheelchair accessible trail and an off-leash dog area.

Purisima Creek Redwoods 3,360
24 miles of trails, features Purisima Creek Canyon, views of the coast and Half Moon Bay.

Teague Hill 626
One developed trail takes hikers or equestrians through a small portion of the northwest corner of Teague Hill, into the Santa Cruz Mountains.

San Mateo County

8.49 miles of trails, features
Edgewood Park 467 serpentine grasslands that are famous for t h e i r magnificent displays of wildflowers each spring.

State Department of Fish and Game Bair Island Ecological Reserve 1,985 Former salt ponds that have been restored to tidal wetlands.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Peninsula Watershed 19,000
4,000
Scenic Easement Scenic and Recreation Easement.
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Hiking Trail at Big Canyon Park
Figure 7-1 shows the locations of open space within and surrounding the city. Figure 7-3 shows the location of the Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, Peninsula Watershed, Edgewood Park and Bair Island regional open spaces surrounding San Carlos.

Trails
Highlands, Arguello, Big Canyon, Eaton and Heather Dog Area are the five city parks with hiking trails within the city limit. Among these parks, the City owns and maintains 8.7 miles of recreational trails which are shown in Figure 7-4. The longest trail within San Carlos’ trail system is the Eaton-Big Canyon Trail, which runs through both Eaton and Big Canyon Parks and connects the two parks together. The City does not maintain equestrian facilities or mountain biking trails at this time. Information on pathways through the city for bicycling and jogging are discussed in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of this General Plan. The City has plans to expand the system of public trails in San Carlos. In February of 2007 the City Council approved a Trails Connections Plan that identifies 14 possible new connections to existing trails in San Carlos and surrounding areas. Existing trails and planned connections are shown in Figure 7-4 and listed in Table 7-3. Of the 14 connections, six connect trails within San Carlos and the remaining eight are regional connections. The first priority trails, as identified in the plan, are scheduled to be implemented before the second priority trails. In addition to implementing the Trails Connections Plan, the City’s planned improvements to the trail system include extending existing trails and addressing soil erosion and trail drainage issues. 164 GENERAL PLAN

7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 167
First Priority Second Priority Source: City of San Carlos, 2007, Trails Connections Plan.

As previously noted, the City does not currently meet its standard of 1 mile of hiking trail per 1,000 residents. To do so, the City would need a total of 27 miles of trails (at the city’s current population). Additional trail miles would be provided with implementation of the Council approved Trail \ Connections Plan and identified during development of the upcoming Open Space Management Plan. The Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan schedules the Open Space Management Plan for development during Fiscal Year 2008/09 to 2011/12.

Recreational Programs
The Parks and Recreation Department provides recreational services and programs for all residents of San Carlos including youth, adults, senior citizens and people with disabilities. Services and programs are primarily provided at the Adult Community Center, Sustainability and the Parks and Recreation Department
ing to the advancement of sustainability
practices within the city. The Department uses a small electric truck for park maintenance, has a strong recycling program, and implements an Integrated Pest Management plan which strives to reduce the amount of chemicals used for park maintenance. The Department uses 100 percent of all downed trees for mulch and utilizes an irrigation system that regulates the amount of water used based on atmospheric conditions.

TABLE 7-3 POTENTIAL SAN CARLOS TRAIL

CONNECTIONS
1 Crestview to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and San Francisco Watershed Lands 2 Unimproved City-Owned Parcel on Crestview (Across Crestview Drive from Vista Park) to San Francisco Watershed Lands 3 Devonshire Trail System to Crestview4 Highland Area/Heather Park to Big Canyon/Eaton Trail System 5 Lynton/Oakley Avenue to Club Drive to Witheridge Road to Belmont Trail System 6 End of Brittan to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve 7 Cranfield Avenue to Club Drive to Witheridge in Belmont 8 Eaton Park to City-Owned Parcel Off La Mesa Drive Via Loma Road to Edgewood Park 9 Oakley/Devonshire to Crestview Drive and Vista Park10 Lands of Rosa Flores Via Chesham to Proposed Devonshire Trail System 11 Land of Rosa Flores Via Winding Way to Proposed Devonshire Trail System 12 Existing Trail from Highlands Park to Winding Way 13 Alameda to Dundee and Highland Park Across Black Mountain Property to Bell/Lupin Avenue 14 Lower Crestview Drive to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve 7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
168 GENERAL PLAN
the Burton Park buildings and the Laureola Park Special Needs Building. The Adult Community Center serves residents over 50, offering a number of classes and activities. Meeting and dining spaces for special events are available at the Adult Community Center. At Burton Park is the Youth Center, which targets pre-teen and young teen youth and has a full-size gymnasium, activities room, TV lounge, learning kitchen, dance studio and computer-equipped homework center. The Laureola Park Special Needs Building offers pre-school programs and serves special-needs residents, offering recreation and socialization activities Youth Center at Burton Park
for children, teenagers and adults with physical, social, or learning limitations. To enhance the recreational programming available to San Carlos residents, the City has identified the need for new recreational facilities and improvements to existing ones. The City has planned new recreational facilities including an aquatics center, a performing arts center, a new community center and a gymnasium for adult recreation. The City has planned improvements for existing facilities such as the Adult Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities The Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities was adopted in August, 2008. The purpose of the plan is to provide the city with a long-term vision for its park system by identifying improvements to existing parks and targeting opportunities for new park facilities. The implementation strategy, a component of the Master Plan, prioritizes and schedules park system improvements and discusses funding for capital improvements and ongoing operation costs and maintenance. Specific recommendations in the Master Plan will be supported by broader policies regarding parks and recreational facilities in the 2030 General Plan. 7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 169
Community Center, the Laureola Park Building and the San Carlos Museum of History.

Funding Sources
Many California cities experience fiscal pressure to provide recreational facilities and programs for their residents. Despite funding cuts, the City remains committed to providing a high level of service for residents. The City is considering a wide variety of funding mechanisms to maintain prior funding levels. The City has a Quimby Act Ordinance in place. The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The City will also consider additional funding sources including other development-related financing mechanisms, voter approved taxes and assessments, private sector funding and grant resources.

The Guiding Principles are a set of key objectives that articulate San Carlos’ core values relating to parks and recreation. The Guiding Principles of the Parks and Recreation Element are:

Strengthen a sense of place and community image in San Carlos through parks and recreational programs. Provide facilities and recreational opportunities for all residents of all ages and abilities. Maintain a diversity of passive and active facilities and recreational uses in San Carlos. Support a sustainable way of life through parks and recreation. Facilitate and support community problem solving. Support urban trails to enhance pedestrian mobility and interconnectivity. 7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
170 GENERAL PLAN
Goals, Policies and Actions POLICY PR-1.1 Actively pursue land acquisitions to provide additional recreational opportunities, especially in underserved areas, which will help the City achieve the goal of increased park land.

POLICY PR-1.2 Maintain a balance of athletic fields,
active parks and passive open space that supports a variety of recreational uses.

ACTION PR-1.1 Explore opportunity sites for the
development of new parks facilities, focusing on providing recreation opportunities to underserved areas based on the City‘s Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities.

ACTION PR-1.2 Work to fund land acquisition for
parks and open space including all available mechanisms both public and private.

ACTION PR-1.3 Continue to monitor possibilities for
acquisition of land to expand the Adult Community Center and/or City Hall Park.

ACTION PR-1.4 Strive to provide a minimum of 2.5
acres of traditional parkland for every 1,000 residents.

ACTION PR-1.5 Strive to provide a park facility within
½-mile of every resident.

POLICIES

AC TIONS
GOAL
PR-1
Increase the amount of City-owned park and open space land. 7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 171
ACTION PR-1.6 Provide the opportunity for the Parks
and Recreation Department during the development review process to assess on-site open space and recreational amenities.

ACTION PR-1.7 Investigate acquisition of open space
lands or easements to expand trail network, especially in areas adjacent to existing open space.

ACTION PR-1.8 Explore purchase or easement
encumbrance of land in the Devonshire Can- yon area.

ACTION PR-1.9 Update the City’s park development
impact fee to address residential renovations, remodels and additions that potentially increase the number of residents living in a dwelling unit.

ACTION PR-1.10 Identify parcels that may be suitable
for acquisition; for example, parcels in underserved areas of the city and parcels adjacent to parks and public facilities.

ACTION PR-1.11 Consider adoption of an ordinance
requiring the maximum allowable park land dedication fee.

ACTION PR-1.12 All City-owned Park Facilities and
Open Space Park Facilities, as defined by the Municipal Code, should be rezoned to allow such uses. The City Council may change the zoning to allow other uses if it finds that it is a change in use that will meet the goals of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.

Dog exercise area at Crestview Park
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
172 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
PR-2
Provide cultural, historical, environmental education and recreational facilities that support a diversity of needs and interests.

POLICY PR-2.1 Consider the recreational needs and
interests of all segments of the San Carlos community when evaluating decisions relating to parks facilities.

POLICY PR-2.2 Consider establishing a new facility for
the visual and performing arts.

POLICY PR-2.3 Continue to support implementation
of trail connections as identified in the City’s Master Potential Trail Connections Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreation Facilities.

POLICY PR-2.4 Continue to maintain City owned open
space trails and connections to regional trails.

POLICY PR-2.5 Promote the development of publicly
accessible urban trails throughout the city to provide access to the natural environment and facilitate nonmotorized transportation options.

POLICY PR-2.6 Complete the Bay Trail alignment in
San Carlos.

POLICY PR-2.7 Encourage new development to
provide trails and trail connection easements or dedications where feasible and appropriate.

POLICY PR-2.8 Address any multi-use trail conflicts
with enforced policy and posted signage.

POLICY PR-2.9 Continue building and renovating
playgrounds to universal accessibility standards.

Denotes synergy with Climate Action Plan

POLICIES
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 173
POLICY PR-2.10 Improve the availability and quality of
athletic fields in San Carlos.

ACTION PR-2.1 Study the feasibility of acquiring
additional parkland to construct a new community center and outdoor aquatics facility.

ACTION PR-2.2 Consider constructing an outdoor
theater.

ACTION PR-2.3 Continue joint-use agreements with
the San Carlos Elementary School District for additional use of school facilities and fields.

ACTION PR-2.4 Continue and enhance alternative
funding strategies for providing additional facilities, including naming rights and sponsorships, grants and endowments.

ACTION PR-2.5 Coordinate with relevant agencies and
organizations to support development of the Bay Trail Network and to provide a safe and convenient route in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport.

ACTION PR-2.6 Prepare an Open Space Management
and Trails Master Plan to further identify trail connectivity and future trail development for public benefit.

ACTION PR-2.7 Maintain a current map of trails that is
available to the public and update as necessary to define trails as multi-use or single-use.

ACTION PR-2.8 Extend and improve trails in Big Canyon, Eaton Park and Arguello Park. ACTION PR-2.9 Consider providing space, whether in new or existing parks, for off-leash dog areas, a skate park, bocce courts, Frisbee golf, BMX bicycling and other alternative sports.

AC TIONS
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
174 GENERAL PLAN
ACTION PR-2.10 Study feasibility and desirability of
reopening and/or expanding pedestrian and bicycle pathways.

Oak tree at Burton Park
GOAL
PR-3
Provide recreational programs to meet the needs of all residents.

POLICY PR-3.1 Ensure that recreational programs are
available for all ages and abilities.

POLICY PR-3.2 Support recreational programs that
encourage the interaction of different segments of the San Carlos population.

POLICY PR-3.3 Expand the availability of aquatics
facilities and programming.

POLICY PR-3.4 Promote visual and performing arts
programs.

POLICIES
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 175
POLICY PR-3.5 Ensure that parks facilities and usage
will only be expanded with a commensurate expansion in maintenance resources, including future staff and equipment.

POLICY PR-3.6 Partner with adjacent agencies
including San Mateo County, Belmont Parks and Recreation, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to provide expanded parks and open space amenities for San Carlos residents.

POLICY PR-3.7 Protect the Youth Center as a valuable
venue exclusively for youth activities and programs. “Protect the Youth Center as a valuable venue giving priority to youth activities and programs as subject to the terms in the Youth Center Use Policy adopted by City Council”.

ACTION PR-3.1 Seek to establish a joint use agreement
with the Sequoia Union High School District to increase access to pools, gymnasiums, theaters, athletic fields and other facilities.

ACTION PR-3.2 Seek to improve existing fields
through the City/San Carlos Elementary School District joint use agreement.

City Hall Park

AC TIONS
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
176 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL
PR-4
Provide for environmentally-sustainable parks and recreational programs.

POLICY PR-4.1 Preserve and protect sensitive species
and habitats in City parks and open space, as identified by the Environmental Management Element of this Plan or state and federal guidelines.

POLICY PR-4.2 Maintain and enhance ecological
diversity in City parks and open space.

POLICY PR-4.3 Incorporate sustainable practices into
the on-going maintenance of City parks and recreational facilities.

POLICY PR-4.4 Design new park and community
facilities with environmentallyfriendly features, incorporating formalized Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices and to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified or equivalent.

POLICY PR-4.5 Consider transit, bicycle and
pedestrian accessibility when evaluating locations for new or substantially renovated parks facilities.

POLICY PR-4.6 Use sustainable materials reused,
renewable, locally sourced and/or recycled to the greatest extent possible.

POLICY PR-4.7 Continue to employ integrated pest
management policy and practices as part of parks maintenance and recreation services programs.

POLICY PR-4.8 Replant, when necessary, with native
species and/or climate appropriate
plants.

POLICIES
7 PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
GENERAL PLAN 177
POLICY PR-4.9 Design and maintain trails with
appropriate drainage standards and to prevent soil erosion.

POLICY PR-4.10 Integrate stormwater management
onsite to the greatest extent possible for all parks facilities.

POLICY PR-4.11 Maintain or plant trees where
appropriate to provide shade, absorb carbon, reduce the heat island effect and reduce cooling loads in shaded buildings.

POLICY PR-4.12 Study the feasibility of reducing or
eliminating City department use of gasoline powered landscape maintenance equipment.

ACTION PR-4.1 Based on recommendations for
increased energy efficiency, develop an implementation program for efficiency modifications to Department- maintained facilities.

ACTION PR-4.2 Adopt Bay-Friendly Landscaping
Principles or current best practices as part of the City’s parks maintenance pro- gram.

ACTION PR-4.3 Continue and enhance the grasscycling and plant debris compost program.

ACTION PR-4.4 Develop a program to replace sheared
hedges in City parks with plants that can grow to their natural shape and size within the space allotted to them.

ACTION PR-4.5 Continue and enhance smart irrigation
with climate-based controllers in City parks.

San Carlos City CouncilMay 27, 2025

San Carlos City Council
May 27, 2025