Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, November 10, 2025 (part 10 of 10)

By signing this agreement I am indicating that I have read, understand, and agree to the recycling requirements listed above.

Project Address: _____________________________________________ Permit Number: ___________________ Owner / Applicant (Print): ___________________________________________________ Owner / Applicant Signature: _________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Recognized Recycling Facility*: _______________________________________________________________________ Deposit Amount: $ Approved By:
*See our list of recognized mixed construction & demolition recycling facilities.

C&D Waste Management Plan Agreement 1 of 4 Updated: 12/7/19

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1804

City of San Carlos
Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Address Date
Project Owner Phone
Applicant Phone
Permit Number Valuation
Type of Project
Demolition Project
- Single Family Home w/o basement 50 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Single Family Home w/ basement 111 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Commercial 155 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Tenant Improvement 20 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Multifamily 127 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
Construction Project
- Single Family Home 4.60 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Addition (SFR) 4.00 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Interior Remodel 0.75 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Commercial 3.90 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Tenant Improvement 2.00 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Multifamily 4.00 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
Renovation Project
- Kitchen (major) 4.50 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Kitchen (minor) 0.75 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Bathroom (major) 1.00 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
- Bathroom (minor) 0.25 lbs / sq ft 0 lbs
0 lbs
Total Pounds by 2000 0.000 tons
Tons multiplied by 50 $500.00
Approved by: __________________________ Date: ____________ C&D Waste Management Plan Agreement 2 of 4 Updated: 12/7/19

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1805

RECOGNIZED MIXED C & D DEBRIS RECYCLING FACILITIES
Below is a list of recognized mixed construction and demolition debris recycling facilities.

Facility Name Phone Number
Appliances
Asphalt
Bricks
Cardboard
Concrete
Dirt
Drywall
GreenWaste
Inerts (mixed)
Metal
Porcelain
Rock
Roofing
Wood (untreated)
Mixed C&D
Blue Line Transfer, Inc
500 East Jamie Ct
South San Francisco, CA
650-589-5511 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Davis Street Recycling Center
2615 Davis St
San Leandro, CA
510-638-2303 X X X X X X X X X X X X
GreenWaste Recovery
625 Charles St
San Jose, CA
408-283-4819 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Guadalupe Landfill
15999 Guadalupe Mines Rd
San Jose, CA
408-268-1670 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Newby Island Landfill
1601 Dixon Landing Rd
Milpitas, CA
408-262-1401 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
San Bruno Garbage Company
101 Tanforan Ave
San Bruno, CA
650-583-8536 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
San Carlos Transfer Station
333 Shoreway Rd
San Carlos, CA 94070
650-592-2411 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
SRDC Recycling Facility
475 Seaport Blvd
Redwood City, CA 94063
650-367-7324 X X X X X X X X X
Valley Recycling
1615 B South 7th St
San Jose, CA
408-297-5352 X X X X X X X X X X X
Zanker Road Landfill
675 Los Esteros Rd
San Jose, CA
408-263-2385 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
An encroachment permit is required from the Public Works Department for debris boxes placed in the public right of way. Contact Public Works, at 650-802-4203.

This information is not necessarily comprehensive and is subject to change. The inclusion or inadvertent exclusion of a company in no way constitutes a recommendation. Contact facilities for current information regarding recycling practices and accepted material.

C&D Waste Management Plan Agreement 3 of 4 Updated: 12/7/19

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1806

A NOTE ABOUT WEIGHT TICKET DOCUMENTATION

ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION
There are a number of different weight tickets and other documentation that contractors and owner / builders will submit to verify that they have salvaged, reused and / or recycled C&D debris.

Acceptable forms include:

1. A list of salvaged items.

2. A statement in writing by a contractor or homeowner that all salvaged materials will be reused onsite.

3. An accounting of dirt (cubic yards) that has been hauled from one building site and used as fill at another with the address of the site where the fill has been used.

4. A weight ticket with the name of the Approved Facility that lists the gross weight (truck + contents), tare weight (truck only) and net weight (contents only). If the ticket lists “origin” it should say “San Carlos”.

5. A ticket with the name of the Approved Facility that lists cubic yardage of C&D debris. If the ticket lists “origin” it should say “San Carlos”.

6. Other documentation as determined to be acceptable by the City of San Carlos.

CONVERTING CUBIC YARDS TO TONS
As a general rule, 4 cubic yards of C&D debris equals one ton (500 pounds per cubic yard).

Obviously, 4 cubic yards of concrete weigh more than 4 cubic yards of gypsum drywall. However, this is a reasonable factor to use.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Loads taken to the San Carlos Transfer Station that are coded at the weight station with “C&D” are sorted and recycled (70%-80% Diversion Rate).

Loads that are coded with M.S.W. (Municipal Solid Waste) are taken to the land-fill (0% Diversion Rate).

Loads of a single type of material (all wood, all concrete, etc) are recycled (100% Diversion Rate).

Be sure that mixed debris loads show “C&D” and not M.S.W.

C&D Waste Management Plan Agreement 4 of 4 Updated: 12/7/19

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1807
WRT 100% Submittal / Bid Set

APPENDIX
D. San Carlos Special Inspection Form H.P. Phase 1A – WARE

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1808
BUILDING OFFICIAL’S ACCEPTANCE
Signature of Building Official Print Name Date
San Carlos Building Division
Special Inspection Form
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the building owner, on the advice of the Architect or Engineer, must sign this form and submit it to the Building Official. The signatories to this form certify that the Testing/Inspection Agency named below has been engaged to perform structural tests and inspection during construction, as checked below, to satisfy all applicable portions of the Building Code.

STRUCTURAL TESTS AND INSPECTION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NAME: PERMIT #:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

ENGINEER Print Name: ● Signature: ● Date:

OWNER Print Name: ● Signature: ● Date:

NAME OF TESTING/INSPECTION AGENCY:

RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYEE
OF THE TESTING AGENCY Title: ● Signature: ● Date:

CONTRACTOR Print Name: ● Signature: ● Date:
 Copies of all laboratory reports and inspections shall be sent directly to the City Building Division and to the registered design professional in responsible charge by the Testing agency on a weekly basis or when testing is performed.  Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Inspection Agency shall submit a statement that all items of designated work performed were reported. Any items checked but not tested or inspected will be noted and explained.

REINFORCING STEEL FILL MATERIAL PILING, CAISSONS, CAPS, TIES  Tensile & Bend, one set per heat per tons  Acceptance Test  Inspection of Reinforcing Placement  Inspection of Placement  Moisture-Density Determination  Inspection of Concrete Placement  Inspection of Welding  Field Density  Inspection of Concrete Batching

MASONRY FIREPROOFING STRUCTURAL WOOD
 Preliminary Acceptance Tests (Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)  Inspection of Placement  Inspection of Fabrication  Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms)  Density Tests  Inspection of Truss Joist Fabrication  Inspection of Grouting  Thickness Tests  Sample & Test Components  Inspection of Placement & Grouting  Inspect Batching  Inspection of Glu Lam Fabrication

CONCRETE, SHOTCRETE, GROUT & MORTAR PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURAL STEEL Conc. Shot. Grout Mortar  Reinforcing Tests  Shop Identification & Welding Inspection Aggregate Testsfor Designs  Inspection of Reinforcing Placement  Shop Ultrasonic Inspection Suitability of Aggregates  Inspection of Tendon Placement  Shop Radiography Mix Designs  Inspection of Concrete Placement  Field Welding Inspection Test Panel  Inspection of Concrete Batching  Field Bolting Inspection Batch Plant Inspection  Inspection of Panel Attachments  Field Ultrasonic Inspection Cement Grab Sample  Compression Tests  Field Radiography Inspect Placing  Inspection of Stressing/Transfer  Metal Deck Welding Inspection Compression Tests
Cast Specimens OTHER TESTS
Pick-Up Samples Specify if other tests, inspections, or special instructions are required for the project:

Shrinkage Bars Epoxy or Expansion Anchors
Yield Check 
Air Check 
Dry Unit Weight 
updated 12/2019 San Carlos Building Division 650-802-4261 | www.cityofsancarlos.org | 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070 PHASE 1A - HARRINGTON PARK FACILITIES BUILDING
759 LAUREL STREET, SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 JOHN Q. WARE, P.E., WARE ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF SAN CARLOS 10.30.2025 Testing Engineers Inc. X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
Continuous Inspection for Epoxy or Expansion Anchors Continuous Inspection for Cast-in Anchor Rods X X

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1809
San Carlos Building Division Special Inspection Form Page 2 of 3

RECOGNIZED SPECIAL INSPECTION & TESTING AGENCIES
Updated: January 2022
KEY
RC = Reinforced Concrete PC = Prestressed Concrete SM = Structural Masonry SW = Steel Welding HSB = High-Strength Bolting NDT = Non-destructive Testing SWC = Structural Wood Construction FP = Fireproofing

AGENCY NAME ADDRESS PHONE/FAX RC PC SM SW HSB NDT SWC FP A 1 Inspection Services 1754 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 621-8001
(415) 358-4409 X X X X X X X X
ACE Quality Control 1830 Vernon St, Suite #7
Roseville, CA 95678
(916) 742-5096
(530) 241-5935 X X X X X X
Achievement Engineering Corp. 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E San Jose, CA 95131
(408) 217-9174
(408) 217-9632 X X X X X X X X
Advanced Testing & Inspection, LLC 540 Brunken Avenue, Suite B Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 422-2272
(831) 597-2004 X X X X X X
Apex Testing Labs, Inc. 1790 Yosemite Ave
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 550-9800
(415) 550-9880 X X X X X X X
Applied Materials & Engineering,
Inc.
980 41st Street
Oakland, CA 94608
(510) 420-8190
(510) 420-8186 X X X X X X X X
Aries Engineering 5357 Persimmon Grove Ct
San Jose, CA 95123 (408) 634-0087 X X X
BAGG Engineers 138 Charcot Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
(650) 852-9133
(650) 852-9138 X X X X X X X X
Berlogar, Stevens and Associates 5587 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 484-0220
(925) 846-9645 X X X X X X
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. 865 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 296-5515
(408) 296-8114 X X X X X
B.S.K. Associates 399 Lindbergh Ave
Livermore, CA 94551
(925) 315-3151
(925) 315-3152 X X X X X X X
Consolidated Engineering Labs 2001 Crow Canyon Rd, Suite 100 San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 314-7100
(925) 855-7140 X X X X X X X X
Construction Testing Services 2174 Rheem Drive, Suite A Pleasanton, CA 94588
(925) 462-5151
(925) 462-5183 X X X X X X X X
CTE Cal, Inc. 46716 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 573-6362
(510) 573-6684 X X X X X X X X
Earth System Pacific 48511 Warm Springs Blvd, Suite 210 Fremont, CA 94539
(510) 353-3833
(888) 567-4292 X X X X X X X
ENGEO Incorporated 2010 Crow Canyon Pl., Suite 250
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 866-9000
(888) 279-2698 X X X X X X X X
Geissler Engineering 235 Montgomery St., Suite 1011
San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 992-9393 X X X
Geocon Consultants, Inc. 6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 371-5900
(925) 371-5915 X X X X X
HP Inspections 690 Sunol Street, Bldg. H
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 288-8460
(408) 271-0902 X X X X X X X
Inspection Consultants, Inc. 1515 North C Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 321-5580
(916) 321-5590 X X X X X X
Inspection Services Inc. 1798 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94703
(415) 243-3265
(415) 243-3266 X X X X X X X X
KC Engineering Co. 865 Cotting Lane, Suite A
Vacaville, CA 95688
(707) 447-4025
(707) 447-4143 X X X X X X
Kleinfelder Inc. 21330 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 628-9000
(510) 628-9009 X X X X X X X X
Korbmacher Engineering Inc. 480 Preston Court, Suite B
Livermore, CA 94551
(925) 454-9033
(925) 454-9564

X X X X X X X X
San Carlos Building Division 650-802-4261 | www.cityofsancarlos.org | 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1810
San Carlos Building Division Special Inspection Form Page 3 of 3 RECOGNIZED SPECIAL INSPECTION & TESTING AGENCIES - continued

AGENCY NAME ADDRESS PHONE/FAX RC PC SM SW HSB NDT SWC FP Krazan and Associates Inc. 1061 Serpentine Lane, Suite F Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 307-1160
(925) 307-1161 X X X X X X X X
MatriScope Engineering
Laboratories, Inc
6244 Preston Av Livermore, CA 94551
601 Bercut Dr. Sacramento, CA 95811
(510) 763-3601
(916) 375-6700 X X X X X X X X
Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc MPE 4200 N. Freeway Blvd., Suite 5 Sacramento, CA 95834 (916) 927-7000 X X X X X X X
Moore Twining Associates, Inc. 2527 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 268-7021
(559) 268-0740 X X X X X X
Nicholas Engineering Consultants 6743 Dublin Boulevard, #15 Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 829-8090
(925) 829-0235 X X X X X X X
Ninyo & Moore 1956 Webster Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 633-5640
(510) 633-5646 X X X X X X X X
NORCON LLC 1661 Tennessee St. Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94107 (415) 710-1155 X X X X X X X X
Pacific Crest Engineering, Inc. 444 Airport Blvd, Ste. 106 Watsonville, CA 95076
(831) 722-9446
(831) 722-9158 X X
PJC & Associates, Inc. 600 Martin Ave, Ste 210
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 (707) 584-4804 X X X
Professional Service Industries, Inc. 365 Victor Street, Suite C Salinas, CA 93907
(831) 757-3536
(831) 757-6265 X X X X X
Quantum Geotechnical 6288 San Ignacio Ave. Suite D
San Jose, CA 95119
(408) 629-3822
(408) 629-3825 X X X X
RES Engineers, Inc. 1250 Missouri Street, Suite 207
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 822-4625
(415) 822-8925 X X X X X X X X
RMA Group 130 Archer Street
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 362-4920
(408) 362-4926 X X X X X X X X
Salem Engineering Group, Inc. 4055 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 110 Fresno, CA 93722
(559) 271-9700
(559) 275-0827 X X X X X X
Signet Testing Laboratories 3526 Breakwater Court
Hayward, CA 94545
(510) 887-8484
(510) 783-4295 X X X X X X X X
Smith-Emery Company
P.O. Box 880550, Hunters Point
Shipyard, Building 114,
San Francisco, CA 94188
(415) 642-7326
(415) 642-7055 X X X X X X X X
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey 1600 Willow Pass Court
Concord, CA 94520
(925) 688-1001
(925) 688-1005 X X X X X X X
Structure Groups 2352 Research Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 447-9900
(925) 447-9901 X X X X X X X
Summit Associates 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1380
Concord, CA 94520
(925) 363-5560
(925) 363-5511 X X X X X X X X
Terracon Consultants, Inc 5075 Commercial Circle, Suite E Concord, CA 94520 (925) 348-9057 X X X X X X X
Testing Engineers Inc. 2811 Teagarden Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 835-3142
(510) 834-3777 X X X X X X X X
Twining 1572 Santa Ana Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95838
(916) 649-9000
(916) 921-8532 X X X X X X
Valley Inspection 326 Woodrow Avenue
Vallejo, CA 94591
(707) 552-7037
(707) 552-7022 X X X
Wallace-Kuhl & Associates, Inc. 3050 Industrial Boulevard West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 372-1434
(916) 372-2565 X X X X X X X
Youngdahl Consulting Group 1234 Glenhaven Court
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 933--0633
(916) 933-6482

X X X X X X X X
San Carlos Building Division 650-802-4261 | www.cityofsancarlos.org | 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1811
WRT 100% Submittal / Bid Set

APPENDIX
E. San Carlos Special Inspection Form H.P. Phase 1A - SC

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1812
BUILDING OFFICIAL’S ACCEPTANCE
Signature of Building Official Print Name Date
San Carlos Building Division
Special Inspection Form
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the building owner, on the advice of the Architect or Engineer, must sign this form and submit it to the Building Official. The signatories to this form certify that the Testing/Inspection Agency named below has been engaged to perform structural tests and inspection during construction, as checked below, to satisfy all applicable portions of the Building Code.

STRUCTURAL TESTS AND INSPECTION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NAME: PERMIT #:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

ENGINEER Print Name: ● Signature: ● Date:

OWNER Print Name: ● Signature: ● Date:

NAME OF TESTING/INSPECTION AGENCY:

RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYEE
OF THE TESTING AGENCY Title: ● Signature: ● Date:

Shrinkage Bars Epoxy or Expansion Anchors
Yield Check 
Air Check 
Dry Unit Weight 
updated 12/2019 San Carlos Building Division 650-802-4261 | www.cityofsancarlos.org | 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070 Leif Johnson, StructureCraft 2025-10-02 Continuous inspection for Cast in Anchor Rods Continuous inspection for Timber Fasteners PHASE 1A - HARRINGTON PARK TIMBER CANOPY

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1813
San Carlos Building Division Special Inspection Form Page 2 of 3

X X X X X X X X
San Carlos Building Division 650-802-4261 | www.cityofsancarlos.org | 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1814
San Carlos Building Division Special Inspection Form Page 3 of 3 RECOGNIZED SPECIAL INSPECTION & TESTING AGENCIES - continued

X X X X X X X X
San Carlos Building Division 650-802-4261 | www.cityofsancarlos.org | 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1815
WRT 100% Submittal / Bid Set

APPENDIX
F. Water Feature Assumptions

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1816
WRT, Inc | 120 2nd Street, 3rd Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 James Stickley CA LA-4251 wrtdesign.com | 415.575.4722 John Gibbs CA LA-4417
L:\8500\8976.01 San Carlos Downtown Implementation\02-Communications\01-Sent\City of San Carlos\250821 Water Feature Assumptions\2025-09-10 SCDI - Water Feature Assumptions.docx September 10, 2025
Re: San Carlos Downtown Implementation – Water Feature Assumptions WRT #8976.01
Grace Le,
Please find the assumptions for the water feature for your record. Due to timing of Phase 1B design and construction following Phase 1A, the design team has made assumptions regarding the water feature so that we can proceed forward with 1A design. These assumptions match the Council approved plans.

The revisions below from the August 21, 2025, letter reflect design refinement to achieve the same design objectives with less piping.

WATER FEATURE DESCRIPTION:

Some kind of sculptural element (TBD through community process) sits atop a raised pool. The sculptural element has one discharge that produces a waterfall out of an opening in the sculpture. The waterfall lands in the pool. The raised pool has an overflowing perimeter, where it flows down into a trough below grade. The trough also serves as the tank for the feature. There is one light at the discharge in the sculptural element and one in the pool at the landing point of the waterfall. There are two benches that bracket the pool. The pool is finished with stone tile. The benches are precast concrete to match other site elements. All equipment is housed in a pump room in the Restroom Building within Harrington Park.

POOL: 210 SF, 2" water depth, 64-foot weir length
LIGHTS: 1 small format white LED light for discharge within stone sculpture, 1 medium format white LED light to uplight waterfall
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED IN AND FROM EQUIPMENT ROOM:

From Equipment Room to Laurel Street:
• One 4" filter pump suction pipe, oversized to mitigate friction losses over the long piping run • One 2" filter pump discharge pipe
• One 8" weir pump suction pipe, also oversized for friction loss mitigation • One 4" weir pump discharge pipe
• One 2" pipe for the rock sculpture discharge
• One 2" pipe for the level sensor and makeup water supply • Three ¾" electrical conduits, one for lighting, one for the anemometer, and the third is spare.

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1817

Page | 2
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Within Mechanical Room:
• One 4" sewer connection
• One 1½" potable water connection (3/4” would suffice here but if we end up using a sand filter, we’ll need the large size to make up for the backwash water quickly) In addition, the fountain will require a 3" overflow sewer connection (which does not return to the equipment room but must be coordinated).

Sincerely,
Megan Dale

8.e
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1818

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended Job Classification Specification for the Position of City Manager, Effective on the First Date of Employment of the New City Manager.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the updated job classification specification for the position of City Manager, effective on the first date of employment of the new City Manager.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the classification update.

BACKGROUND:

This item is coming before the Council per Chapter 2.44.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, which states that revisions of a position classification shall be adopted by Council resolution.

The City Manager classification was last revised in 1993. However, the Municipal Code was updated in 2013 to clarify and update the responsibilities of the City Manager. In preparation for an upcoming leadership transition and recruitment, Human Resources has reviewed and revised the classification to align with the current scope and expectations of the role. The updated job description incorporates contemporary municipal management practices, with an increased focus on strategic leadership and equitable service delivery, and provides for enhanced community engagement.

ANALYSIS:

The updated classification shall be effective on the first date of employment of the new City Manager, and includes the following key changes:
• Modernized Language and Structure: The revised description emphasizes strategic alignment, fiscal sustainability, and performance-based management. • Expanded Leadership Expectations: Includes responsibilities for organizational development, succession planning, and fostering a high-performing workforce. • Community and Regional Engagement: Strengthens the role’s focus on transparency, civic engagement, and regional advocacy.

8.f
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1819
• Municipal Code: Includes and incorporates the requirements, powers, and duties and the provision of an employment agreement for the position of City Manager set forth in Section

2.04 of the Municipal Code.

These updates ensure the classification remains competitive and reflective of the evolving role of city management in a dynamic and diverse community.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the amended job classification specification for the position of City Manager, effective on the first date of employment of the new City Manager; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Proposed Amended City Manager Position Classification

8.f
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1820
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

APPROVING THE AMENDED JOB CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR THE

POSITION OF CITY MANAGER, EFFECTIVE ON THE FIRST DATE OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE NEW CITY MANAGER.

WHEREAS, the City Manager job classification specification was last revised in 1993; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2.44.050 of the San Carlos Municipal Code requires that revisions to position classifications be adopted by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2.04 of the San Carlos Municipal Code sets for the duties, responsibilities, requirements, rights and provision for an employment agreement for the position of City Manager last updated in 2013; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of a leadership transition and upcoming recruitment, the Human Resources Department has reviewed and updated the City Manager classification to reflect the current scope and expectations of the role; and
WHEREAS, the revised classification incorporates modern municipal management practices, with an increased emphasis on strategic leadership, equitable service delivery, and enhanced community engagement; and
WHEREAS, the updated classification includes modernized language and structure, expanded leadership expectations, and a stronger focus on community and regional engagement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the San Carlos City Council hereby approves the amended job classification specification for the City Manager position, effective on the first date of employment of the new City Manager.
* * * * *
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 10th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

8.f
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1821

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ADOPTED CC: 8/9/93
REVISED CC: 11/10/25

CITY MANAGER

DEFINITION
The City Manager serves as the City's Chief Executive Officer, providing strategic leadership and oversight of all municipal operations. This role is responsible for aligning citywide goals with actionable plans, ensuring effective service delivery, and maintaining the City’s long-term financial sustainability.

The City Manager works in close partnership with the City Council to support policy development, performance evaluation, community engagement.

SUPERVISION EXERCISED AND RECEIVED
This position is appointed by the City Council. Supervises all department heads with the exception of the City Attorney.

ESSENTIAL AND IMPORTANT DUTIES
• Collaborates with the City Council to develop and implement strategic goals for the City.

Recommends measurable objectives for each major municipal program or department. • Provides regular updates to the City Council on progress toward goals and departmental performance through clean and timely reports.
• Oversees the development and execution of short-term and long-range operational plans that align with the City’s strategic priorities.
• Prepares and submits for approval the annual operating budget and multi-year capital improvement plan. Ensures fiscal responsibility and provides transparent financial reporting. • Leads organizational development efforts, including succession planning and leadership training, to ensure a high-performing and resilient workforce.
• Supports the development of municipal legislation and ensure timely implementation of Council directives, including enforcement of municipal codes and ordinances. • Designs and maintains an organizational structure that effectively mobilizes resources to deliver highquality services and programs to the community. • Advises the City Council on operational challenges and opportunities, offering data-informed recommendations and seeking guidance as needed.
• Recommends the appointment and removal of department heads and oversees the hiring appointment of subordinate staff in accordance with civil service procedures. • Builds and maintains strong relationships with community leaders, residents and media to foster transparency, trust, and civic engagement.
• Represents the City's interests at regional, state federal, levels, advocating for resources and partnerships that benefit the community.

JOB-RELATED AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of modern principles and practices of city management, city organizational leadership; municipal law and governance; public budgeting and financial planning; human resources and labor relations; and equitable public service.

Ability and skills to engage diverse community groups; build effective working relations with the City Council; lead and develop high performing teams; implement Council policies and strategic initiatives; adapt city programs to evolving social, environmental, and economic conditions. Demonstrated ability to

8.f
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1822
communicate clearly and effectively both verbal and written formats and foster cooperative and inclusive workplace culture.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Sufficient education and experience to perform the duties of this classification effectively. A typical qualifying background would be five years of executive-level experience in local government or a comparable public agency, and a master's degree in public administration, public policy or related field from an accredited institution.

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Ability to speak clearly and effectively; maintain physical and mental stamina to lead or participate in evening meetings; work extended hours as needed; travel to meetings and conferences; hear voices and respond to verbal communication; and read and interpret complex documents.

8.f
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1823

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim of Kelly Boyett.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council deny the claim of Kelly Boyett as recommended by the City’s claim administrators at Carl Warren.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

This item is coming before the Council to act on the claim submitted by Kelly Boyett (“Claimant”).

Staff recommend that the City Council deny the claim based on Carl Warren’s guidance.

The Tort Claims Act. California Government Code Sections 900, seq., mandates that all claims for money or damages against a public entity must be presented in writing to the public entity prior to filing suit. Generally, claims concerning personal injury, wrongful death, damage to personal property, or damage to crops must be presented to the public within six (6) months of the accrual of the claim. All other claims, principally claims on contracts and damage to real property, are subject to a one-year statute of limitations for presentation of the tort claim. Once a tort claim is received by the public entity, the entity has forty-five (45) days to act on the claim. A claim can be settled or rejected. If no action is taken within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law on the last day.

Claim Processing in San Carlos. When the City receives a claim, it is immediately forwarded to claims examiners at Carl Warren for investigation. Upon completing the investigation, Carl Warren provides the City with a recommendation on how to proceed with the claim.

About Carl Warren. Carl Warren is a leading national third-party administrator (TPA) that specializes in property and casualty claims management, subrogation recovery, and litigation management. Effective January 1, 2025, Carl Warren was hired by Pooled Liability Assistance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA) to provide claims administration services to member cities. The City Council approved the City’s participation in the PLAN JPA (previously known as the Association of Bay Area Government Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG PLAN) on November 27, 2017, and designated the Administrative Services Director and Senior Management Analyst as primary and alternate PLAN JPA Board members.

8.g
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1824
ANALYSIS:

Claimant filed a claim against the City regarding the towing of her vehicle in downtown San Carlos.

On or around 10:00 p.m. on October 10, 2025, on the evening before Art and Wine Faire, the Claimant’s vehicle was parked at the corner of Laurel and Olive Streets in a designated no parking zone. Claimant alleges that the “No Parking Friday-Sunday” sign was not noticeable in the location. Therefore, she is seeking reimbursement of $680 in towing fees.

Public Works staff had placed multiple barricades with no-parking signs in that area since Monday, October 6. In addition, this does not appear to be a case of liability against the City, as the City contracts with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office who enforces parking and towed the vehicle. The claim has been tendered to the Sheriff’s Office for review.

The Council’s rejection of this claim does not prevent City staff or the staff of Carl Warren from continuing to work with the claimant to resolve the dispute.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Deny claim of Kelly Boyett; or

2. Do not deny claim of Kelly Boyett; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Boyett, K. Claim Form

8.g
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1825

8.g
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1826

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt Resolutions Summarily Vacating a 5-Foot-Wide Sewer Easement and Accepting a 10-Foot-Wide Sewer Easement Over the Existing Sewer Main at 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt Resolutions to summarily vacate an unnecessary 5- foot-wide sewer easement and accept a 10-foot-wide sewer easement over the existing sewer main at 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact. The cost to process the easement vacation and acceptance is fully covered by fees paid by the requesting property owner.

BACKGROUND:

The property owner of 315 Elm Street is in the process of constructing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear of the property. During the permitting review, it was determined that the existing sewer main is not located within the recorded 5-foot-wide sewer easement, but rather farther to the rear of the parcel. To address this discrepancy, the property owner has requested the vacation of the existing 5-foot easement and has agreed to dedicate a new 10-foot-wide sewer easement that accurately reflects the location of the existing sewer main.

ANALYSIS:

Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code describes the process by which a legislative body may summarily vacate a street, highway, or public service easement by adopting a resolution of vacation.

Per Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the subject easement may be summarily vacated provided that “the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation.”
Currently, no utilities exist within the easement and the City does not have any future plans for the use of this easement for sewer purpose. Therefore, staff recommend that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

1. A Resolution summarily vacating a 5-foot-wide sewer easement located at 315 Elm Street

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1827
(APN 050-052-310), as it is no longer necessary for public utility purposes; and

2. A Resolution accepting a new 10-foot-wide sewer easement over the existing sewer main at the same property, to ensure continued access and maintenance of public sewer infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt Resolutions summarily vacating an unnecessary 5-foot-wide sewer easement and accepting a 10-foot-wide sewer easement over the existing sewer main at 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310); or

2. Do not adopt the Resolutions; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution to Vacate
Exhibit A & B – Legal Description and Plat

2. Resolution to Accept
Exhibit A - Deed of Easement

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1828
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS SUMMARILY VACATING A 5-FOOT-WIDE SEWER EASEMENT AT
315 ELM STREET (APN 050-052-310).
____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the property owner requested vacation of the 5-foot-wide sewer easement at 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310); and
WHEREAS, during the permitting process for an accessory dwelling unit on the property, it was determined that the existing sewer main is not located within the recorded easement; and WHEREAS, the existing 5-foot-wide sewer easement is no longer necessary for public utility purposes; and
WHEREAS, Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code describes the process by which a legislative body may summarily vacate a street, highway, or public service easement by adopting a resolution of vacation; and
WHEREAS, per Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the subject easement may be summarily vacated provided that “the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation”; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have any future plans for the use of this easement for sewer purpose.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Carlos that the 5-foot-wide sewer easement located at 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310), described and shown on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof, and that from and after the date this Resolution is recorded, the sewer easement vacated no longer constitutes a sewer easement.
* * * * * * *
I, 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 10th day of November, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ __________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1829
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibits:

A. Legal Description
B. Plat

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1830
April 25, 2025
NorthStar No. 21102901

Page 1 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description

SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT VACATION
Real property in the City of San Carlos, County of San Mateo, State of California, being a portion of that certain sewer easement granted to the San Carlos Sanitary District as described in that certain deed entitled “Grant of Right of Way”, recorded on April 8, 1925, in Book 161 Official Records at Page 271, San Mateo County Records. Also being a portion of Lot 25, Block 20, as shown on that certain subdivision map recorded on May 20, 1921, in Book 10 of Maps at Pages 39 and 40, San Mateo County Records, described as follows; COMMENCING at a found 3/4” iron pipe with plastic plug stamped “LS 7701”, as shown on that certain map recorded on August 11, 2016 in Book 43 of LLS Maps at Page 31, San Mateo County Records, said iron pipe also being the northwesterly corner of Lot 30, Block 20 as shown on said subdivision map; Thence, northerly along the easterly right-of-way line of Elm Street, formerly Myrtle Avenue, as shown on said map, the following two (2) course and distances:
1) N00°36’00”W, 184.76 feet
2) N15°06’30”W, 64.71 feet to the northwesterly corner of Lot 25, Block 20; Thence, easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 25, N76°45’40”E, 166.51 feet to a point at the intersection of the northerly line of Lot 25 with the westerly line of that certain 5-foot wide Sewer Easement, as described in Book 161 Official Records at Page 271, recorded on April 08, 1925, San Mateo County Records, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, continuing along said northerly line of Lot 25, N76°45’40”E, 5.54 feet to the easterly line of said easement;
Thence, leaving said northerly line of Lot 25 and along the easterly line of said easement, the following two (2) courses and distances:
1) S38°41’00”E, 41.64 feet
2) S10°12’42”W, 32.40 feet to the southerly line of Lot 25; Thence, westerly along said southerly line of Lot 25, N82°45’20”E, 5.24 feet to the westerly line of said easement;
Thence, leaving said southerly line of Lot 25 and along said westerly line of said easement, the following two (2) courses and distances:
1) N10°12’42”E, 31.70 feet
2) N38°41’00”W, 41.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 369 square feet, more or less.
2025.04.30
CSG - PC#3

ZB / DR

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1831
April 25, 2025
NorthStar No. 21102901

Page 2 of 2 ends

Basis of Bearings: The bearing of N00°36'00"W of the westerly line of Lot 30, between found monuments, as said monuments are shown on that certain map recorded on August 11, 2016 in Book 43 of LLS Maps at

Page 31 ends

The Sewer Easement Vacation shown on the plat entitled “EXHIBIT B” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act.

NorthStar Survey

______________________________
Brian Cass, P.L.S. No. 9629
______________________________
Date
04/25/2025

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1832
November 10, 2025
NorthStar Survey
04/25/2025

Page 1 of 1 ends

SEWER EASEMENT VACATION

CLOSURE CALCULATION
Segment #1 : Line
Course: N76° 45' 40"E Length: 5.54'
Segment #2 : Line
Course: S38° 41' 00"E Length: 41.64'
Segment #3 : Line
Course: S10° 12' 42"W Length: 32.40'
Segment #4 : Line
Course: S82° 45' 20"W Length: 5.24'
Segment #5 : Line
Course: N10° 12' 42"E Length: 31.70'
Segment #6 : Line
Course: N38° 41' 00"W Length: 41.75'
Perimeter: 158.27' Area: 368.74 Sq. Ft.

Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N19° 36' 20"E
Error North: 0.005 East: 0.002
Precision 1: 15827.00

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1834
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ACCEPTING A 10-FOOT-WIDE SEWER EASEMENT OVER THE
EXISTING SEWER MAIN AT 315 ELM STREET (APN 050-052-310).

WHEREAS, the property owner of 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310) has agreed to grant a new 10-foot-wide sewer easement to the City of San Carlos to reflect the actual location of the existing sewer main; and
WHEREAS, the new easement will ensure continued access for maintenance and operation of public sewer infrastructure.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Carlos that the 10-foot-wide sewer easement located at 315 Elm Street (APN 050-052-310), described and shown on Deed of Easement attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted.
* * * * * * *
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 10th day of November, 2025 by the following vote:

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1835
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: : No Di itary Ti D City of San Carlos lo Documentary Transfer Tax Due AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:

City of San Carlos
Engineering Division
600 Elm Street
San Carios, CA 94070-3085
No recordation Fee Required per Government Code Sec 6103 Space above this line for Recorder’s Use Governmental entity acquiring title,

Tax exempt effective November 10, 1969

DEED OF EASEMENT
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which hereby acknowledged, éT, le ¥eko FF GRANTOR(S): [OWNER(S) NAME] Wins nev Wy cKO FF ES via By: ZZ A b/g Print Name: Mad 5 t Ww Ly cKO oi 4 Juza ychOkF Ll Print Title:

hereby grant to the City of San Carlos, a municipal corporation of the State of California a sanitary sewer easement, 10-foot width, for the purposes of installation, maintenance, replacement, and repair of sanitary sewer facilities, in, on, over, under, along and across the real property situate in the City of San Carlos, County of San Mateo, State of California, including the right to excavate, construct, install, operate, repair, maintain, and replace sanitary sewer pipe, facilities and appurtenances thereto, as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR(S) have executed this document this

GZ dayot__ AZay , 2025.

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1836

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
}SS.

COUNTY OF SAN }
MATEO
On Mey ot 202 before me, Lan Feely Notary
Winston yxchef F ant dolig wychohe Public, personally appeared Jin w\iq vyclef who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) i8/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that bé/she/they executed the same in tyh/per/their authorized capacity(ies) and by bis/Ker/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the i nstrument.

| certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
ia Getem, MASON ALEXANDER FELIX
a COMM. # 2402098
BE SY §=NOTARY PUBLIC @ CALIFORNIA aa =>
WITNESS my han
Signature

{PLACE NOTARY SEAL ABOVE)
Date
flay 6, 2225

WOSTOH WYCKOFF
Date ’ Wy Vay b, 2225
Owner
Turin W¥eKoFF

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1837
2025.04.3(
North Star Survey CSG - PC#
ZB/DR
; April 25, 2025
NorthStar No. 21102901

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description

T 'Y EN
An easement over that certain real property in the City of San Carlos, County of San Mateo, State of California, being a portion of Lot 25, Block 20, as shown on that certain subdivision map recorded on May 20, 1921 in Book 10 of Maps at Pages 39 and 40, San Mateo County Records, described as follows; COMMENCING at a found 3/4” iron pipe with plastic plug stamped “LS 7701”, as shown on that certain map recorded on August 11, 2016 in Book 43 of LLS Maps at Page 31, San Mateo County Records, said iron pipe also being the northwesterly corner of Lot 30, Block 20 as shown on said subdivision map; Thence, northerly along the easterly right-of-way line of Elm Street, formerly Myrtle Avenue, as shown on said map, the following two (2) course and distances:
1) N00°36’00"W, 184.76 feet
2) N15°06'30"W, 64.71 feet to the northwesterly corner of Lot 25, Block 20; Thence, easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 25, N76°45’40’E, 181.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence, continue easterly along said northerly line of Lot 25, N76°45’40"E, 10.00 feet:

Thence, leaving said northerly line of Lot 25, $13°27’38’E, 68.85 feet to the southerly line of Lot 25; Thence, westerly along said southerly line of Lot 25, $82°45’20”W, 10.06 feet:

Thence, leaving said southerly line of Lot 25, N13°27’38”W, 67.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 683 square feet, more or less.

Page 31 ends

The Sewer Easement shown on the plat entitled “EXHIBIT B” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act.

NorthStar Survey
BEE e222
Brian Cass, P.L.S. No. 9629
04/25/2025
Date

Page 1 of 1 ends

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1838

LOT 24 BLOCK 20 10-M-39
“ PE oe.

g i “ N76°45'40"E 181.26" 3 “40 nel of
re ao LOT 25 mei = Be nt ‘ =z &e APN 050-052-310 we; & z * : 15.7 N8245°20°- ——— ) asreny S245'20"E 180.97

PG&E POLE LINE
~ EASEMENT101 O.R. 442

LINE TABLE
DIRECTION | LENGTH
N76°45'40"E | 10.00'
$13'27'38"E | 68.85"
$82°45'20"W
LIO | N13'27°38"w

Zi
L7 +

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

REFERENCE MAPS ggg)
—--—
_ LEGEND Ey) Sots a
BOUNDARY LINE/LOT LINE —_ - — CENTERLINE
FEET
oa ; VLLLLLLLI SEWER EASEMENT
—_- —_ EASEMENT LINE —ss—— EXISTING SEWER LINE
IP FOUND 3/4” IRON PIPE WITH PLUG,

Sy STAMPED “LS 7701"; PER 43-LLS-31 SSF p.os. POINT OF BEGINNING = P.0.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT [ RECORD INFORMATION BASIS OF BEARINGS

PLAT

EXHIBIT

TO ACCOMPANY
"B”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

NORTHSTAR SURVEY
WWW.NSSURVEY.NET JOB NO. JOB_NO. a 21102901 eee

SAN CARLOS, CA
669-250-7429 BY BC APPR.___BC ; DATE a 2 5

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1839

SEWER EASEMENT

CLOSURE CALCULATION
Segment #1 : Line
Course: N76° 45'40"E Length: 10.00'
Segment #2 : Line
Course: $13° 27'38"E Length: 68.85'
Segment #3 : Line
Course: $82° 45'20"W Length: 10.06'
Segment #4 : Line
Course: N13° 27'38"W Length: 67.80"
Perimeter: 156.71' Area: 683.26 Sq. Ft.

Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N70° 39' 59"W
Error North: 0.000 East: -0.001
Precision 1: 156710000.00
NorthStar Survey
04/25/2025

Page 1 ends

8.h
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1840

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Big Canyon Park Landslide Project (Behind 995 Crestview Drive) (C2318) and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the Big Canyon Park Landslide Project (behind 995 Crestview Drive) (C2318) (“Project”) and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a Notice of Completion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal impacts and no additional funding is needed.

The City Council awarded the contract to Beals Martin and Associates, Inc. (“Contractor”) in the amount of $52,009.82, plus a 20% contingency of $10,401.96, for a total Project budget of $62,411.78. The total cost to complete the Project was $77,498.82. This necessitated an additional appropriation of $20,000 approved by City Council on November 25, 2024 and an amendment to the agreement executed on April 7, 2025.

The additional cost to complete the Project was the result of unforeseen field conditions that required additional work to remove landslide materials and to install a new subdrain system to properly repair the landslide.

BACKGROUND:

During the 2023 winter storms, the City experienced extended periods of heavy rain, which oversaturated the ground and caused surface flooding. This led to multiple landslides throughout the city within the right-of-way and adjacent to private property due to erosion.

In early 2024, staff retained ENGEO, Inc. (“Consultant”) to perform post storm assessments to determine the extent of damage at each landslide and provide recommendations for permanent improvements.

The Project was publicly advertised on February 13, 2024, and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on March 5, 2024. The City Council awarded the Project to the Contractor at its meeting on March 25, 2024. The Contractor began the Project on July 18, 2024.

8.i
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1841
ANALYSIS:

The Project was completed on October 23, 2025, in accordance with the approved Project specifications. Therefore, staff recommend accepting the Big Canyon Park Landslide Project (Behind 995 Crestview Drive) (C2318) and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a Notice of Completion.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution accepting the Big Canyon Park Landslide Project (behind 995 Crestview Drive) (C2318) and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a Notice of Completion; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

8.i
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1842
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ACCEPTING THE BIG CANYON PARK LANDSLIDE PROJECT (BEHIND 995 CRESTVIEW DRIVE) (C2318) AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ISSUE AND RECORD A NOTICE OF COMPLETION.

WHEREAS, during the 2023 winter storms, the city experienced extended periods of heavy rain which oversaturated the ground, caused surface flooding, and led to multiple landslides throughout the city, within the right-of-way and adjacent to private property due to erosion; and WHEREAS, staff retained ENGEO, Inc. (“Consultant”) to perform post storm assessments to determine the extents of damages at each landslide and provide recommendations for permanent improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant was then tasked with providing engineering services and preparing the construction documents; and
WHEREAS, staff and the Consultant worked with site-adjacent residents and businesses during the preparation of construction documents to ensure the improvements would not result in any negative impacts; and
WHEREAS, the project was publicly advertised on February 13, 2024, and sealed bids were opened by the City Clerk on March 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the project to Beals Martin and Associates, Inc. (“Contractor”) at its meeting on March 25, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor began the Project on July 18, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Project was completed on October 23, 2025, in accordance with the approved project specifications; and
WHEREAS, staff recommend accepting the project and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a Notice of Completion.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby accepts the Big Canyon Park Landslide Project (behind 995 Crestview Drive) (C2318) and authorizing the Public Works Director to issue and record a Notice of Completion. * * * * *
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 10th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

8.i
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1843
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

8.i
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1844

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt Ordinance 1629 Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter

15.04 – Technical Building Codes, adopting the 2025 Editions of the California Administrative Code, California Building Code (Volumes 1 and 2), California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Historical Code, California Existing Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Referenced Standards Code, 1997 Uniform Security Code, the 2024 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code with amendments and modifications, and Safety Assessment Program (SAP) Placards; and Adopt Ordinance 1630 Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section 15.04.110 – Title 24, Part 9, California Fire Code – Adopting the 2024 Edition of the International Fire Code and the 2025 California Fire Code including all Adopted Standards.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the following two Ordinances:

1. Ordinance 1629 amending and modifying Chapter 15.04 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code (”Technical Building Codes”) to adopt the 2025 California Building Code series, and

2. Ordinance 1630 adopting the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code with the 2025 California Fire Code amendments.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact and no additional appropriation is needed.

Building Division and Fire Department fees will not be changed with the adoption of the 2025 California Building and Fire Code series. Any costs associated with training will be covered by the Building Division’s adopted budget.

BACKGROUND:

A copy of Ordinance 1629, Ordinance 1630, and a related staff report was provided to the City Council at its October 27, 2025 meeting, at which time the Council introduced the proposed Ordinances. The Ordinances and tracked changes are provided as attachments to this report.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1845
ANALYSIS:

Notable Changes to the 2025 California Building Codes and Other Regulatory Requirements:
1) California AB 130
AB 130 adds several provisions that limit the ability to make modifications to the California Building Standards Code relating to residential units, including the following:
 Local Amendments Restriction: From October 1, 2025 to June 1, 2031, a city or county is generally prohibited from making changes to provisions that are published in the California Building Standards Code and that apply to residential units unless certain conditions are met (e.g., deemed necessary by the California Building Standards Commission as emergency standards to protect health and safety). (Health & Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, 18941.5.)
 Building Code Amendment Restriction: Similarly, from October 1, 2025 to June 1, 2031, the California Building Standards Commission is generally prohibited from making changes to provisions that are published in the California Building Standards Code and that apply to residential units unless certain criteria are met (e.g., deemed necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety). (Health & Safety Code Sections 18929.1 and 18930.)
2) The 2024 International Fire Code and the 2025 California Fire Code The City of San Carlos is required to formally adopt a Fire Code and to comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections 13143.5, 13145, and 13146. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 2) reflects practical enforcement of the California Fire Code and will not pose an unreasonable financial hardship to stakeholders within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City.

Amendments to the Fire Code were made to be consistent with the findings of California AB 130.

The San Carlos Fire Department also recommends eliminating or modifying certain past amendments that have proven excessive or not significantly beneficial to the community fire and life safety. These revisions will not reduce the reasonable expectation of safety but will lower construction costs, particularly for residential occupancies. These changes also support consistency across San Mateo County, as the San Carlos Fire Department participates in an automatic aid system with surrounding jurisdictions.
3) Bay Area Air District Rules and Compliance Timeline
The Bay Area Air District has rule amendments that will apply to the replacement of and purchase of new zero nitrogen oxide (NOx) emitting appliances, as follows:
 2027 – Only zero NOx water heaters (less than 75,000 BTU/hr) can be sold or installed in the Bay Area.
 2029 – Only zero NOx residential and commercial furnaces can be sold or installed in the Bay Area.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1846
 2031 – Only zero NOx larger commercial and multi-family water heaters (between 75,000 and 2 million BTU/hr) can be sold or installed in the Bay Area. 4) The 2025 Energy Code and New Single-Family Residential Changes One of the significant changes in the 2025 Energy Code for single-family buildings is the prescriptive requirement for both water heating and space heating to be heat pumps. The 2025 Energy Code updates also increase the building envelope efficiency, refine solar photovoltaic calculations, clarify requirements for lighting, and increase efficiency of pool and spa heating equipment.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt Ordinance 1629 amending San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 - Technical Building Codes - to adopt the 2025 California Building Code Series; and adopt Ordinance 1630 amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section 15.04.110 - California Fire Code - to adopt the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code with the 2025 California Fire Code amendments; or

2. Do not adopt Ordinances 1629 and 1630; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Robert Lord, Assistant Building Official;
Chris Valley, Building Official; and
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance 1629
Exhibit A to Ordinance – Building Code with Track Changes

2. Ordinance 1630
Exhibit A to Ordinance – Fire Code with Track Changes

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1847
ORDINANCE NO. 1629

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AMENDING SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 15.04 - TECHNICAL BUILDING CODES, ADOPTING THE 2025 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (VOLUMES 1 AND 2), CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE,

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE,

CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL

CODE, CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE, 1997 UNIFORM SECURITY CODE, THE 2024 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY

MAINTENANCE CODE WITH AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS, AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (SAP) PLACARDS.

The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby finds and declares as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the 2025 California Building Code series has been released by the State of California and will go into effect, January 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, the amendments are intended to be reasonable, not overly burdensome, and in keeping with those proposed by neighboring cities within San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, the goal of local Building Officials is to maintain code consistency amongst jurisdictions by having as few local amendments as possible; and WHEREAS, AB 130 states that from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, a city or county is generally prohibited from making changes to provisions that are published in the California Building Standards Code that apply to residential units unless certain conditions are met (e.g., deemed necessary by the California Building Standards Commission as emergency standards to protect health and safety). (Health & Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, 18941.5.) SECTION 2: Chapter 15.04, Sections 15.04.010, 15.04.020, 15.04.030, 15.04.040,

15.04.045, 15.04.050, 15.04.060, 15.04.070, 15.04.080, 15.04.090, 15.04.100, 15.04.120,

15.04.125, 15.04.130, 15.04.140, 15.04.150, 15.04.160, and 15.04.170 of the San Carlos Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.

SECTION 3: The City Council hereby approves the Municipal Code Ordinance amendment attached as Exhibit A.

SECTION 4: CEQA. This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 5: Severability. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1848
hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6: Publication and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption.
* * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the 27th day of October 2025, and passed and adopted as an Ordinance of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
____________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 15 Updates AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1849
Exhibit A to Ordinance – Building Code Edits
Chapter 15.04
TECHNICAL BUILDING CODES*
Sections:

15.04.010 Adoption of codes by reference—Copies on file.

15.04.020 City Council findings.

15.04.030 Title 24, Part 1, California Administrative Code.

15.04.040 Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2, with appendices, amendments, and modifications

15.04.045 Title 24, Part 2.5, California Residential Code with appendices, amendments, and modifications.

15.04.050 Title 24, Part 3, California Electrical Code, with amendments and modifications.

15.04.060 Title 24, Part 4, California Mechanical Code with appendices.

15.04.070 Title 24, Part 5, California Plumbing Code with appendices.

15.04.080 Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code with appendices.

15.04.090 Title 24, Part 7, California Wildland-Urban Interface Code with appendices.

15.04.100 Title 24, Part 8, California Historical Building Code.

15.04.110 Title 24, Part 9, California Fire Code.

15.04.120 Title 24, Part 10, California Existing Building Code.

15.04.125 Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

15.04.130 Title 24, Part 12, California Referenced Standards Code.

15.04.140 1997 Uniform Building Security Code.

15.04.150 20212024 International Property Maintenance Code.

15.04.160 Safety Assessment Program (SAP) placards.

15.04.170 Findings.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1850
* Prior ordinance history: Ords. 1021, 1078, 1099, 1104 and 1267.

15.04.010 Adoption of codes by reference—Copies on file.

The City Council finds that the requirements of Government Code Sections 50022.4, 50022.5 and 50022.6 relating to adopting codes by reference have been met. The City Council directs that one (1) copy of each code adopted by reference shall be placed on file with the Building Official and maintained there for public inspection while the said codes are in effect. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.020 City Council findings.

The City Council finds that modifications are required for the respective codes being adopted herein. Specifically, local climatic, geologic, topographic, and social conditions necessitate the modifications as listed in Section 15.04.170. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1448 § 2, 2012: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.030 Title 24, Part 1, California Administrative Code.

Title 24, Part 1, the California Administrative Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.040 Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2, with appendices, amendments, and modifications
Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code, 20222025 Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, is hereby adopted by reference, with the following selected appendices, amendments and modifications:

A. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Title 24, Part 3, the California Electrical Code, 20222025 Edition, Section 89.108.8, Appeals Board.

B. Division II, Scope and Administration, is adopted and amended as follows:

Section 105.2(2) Fences not over 6 feet high. Add: plus 12" of lattice. See the San Carlos Municipal Code, Section 18.15.040.

Section 105.2(4) Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet high measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II, or IIIA liquids. Add: Wood retaining walls are limited to 3 feet tall without permits. Retained soil at top of wall limited to 2:1 slope.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1851
Section 105.2 (6) is deleted.

C. Section 901.2, add:
as amended by the City of San Carlos Fire Department.

D. Section 1705A.31705.3, Exception, 1, add:
where the structural design of the footing is based on a specified compression strength, f’c, no greater than 2,500 pound per square inch (psi) (17.2 Mpa).

E. Section 2308.7.12308.3.1, Foundation plates or sills, is modified to read as follows:

Section 2308.7.12308.3.1 Foundation plates or sills. Foundation plates or sills resting on concrete or masonry foundations shall comply with Section 2304.3.1. Foundation plates or sills shall be bolted or anchored to the foundation with not less than 5/8-inch diameter (15.875 mm) steel bolts or approved anchors spaced to provide the equivalent anchorage as the steel bolts. Bolts shall be embedded not less than 7 inches (178 mm) into concrete or masonry. The bolts shall be located in the middle third of the width of the plate. Bolts shall be spaced not more than 6 feet (1829 mm) on center and there shall be not less than two bolts or anchor straps per piece with one bolt or anchor strap located not more than 12 inches (305 mm) or less than 4 inches (102 mm) from each end of the piece. Bolts in sill plates of braced wall lines in structures over two stories above grade shall be spaced not more than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center. A properly sized nut and washer shall be tightened on each bolt to the plate.

F. CBC Appendix Chapter I is selected and adopted. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.045 Title 24, Part 2.5, California Residential Code with appendices, amendments, and modifications.

Title 24, Part 2.5, California Residential Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with the following selected appendices, amendments, and modifications:

A. Section R105.2, Work exempt from permit. Items 2, 5, and 10 are deleted.

B. Section R112, Board of Appeals, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Title 24, Part 3, the California Electrical Code, 20222025 Edition, Section 89.108.8, Appeals Board.

C. Chapter 2, Definitions, add:

RESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION. A residential-type project where the building at any time is uninhabitable, including removal of any or all utilities (water, electrical, natural gas, or

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1852
sewer); or the project provides no permanent kitchen or bathroom facilities; or the project provides no shelter or ability to maintain heat as defined by code; or when over 50% of the foundation is replaced or reinforced other than the repair of a foundation failure; or when over 50% of the exterior wall framing above the foundation is removed or replaced. Final determination whether a project meets the definition of residential reconstruction shall be made by the Building Official.

D. Section R309.2313.2, One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems, add:

An automatic residential fire sprinkler system, in accordance with R309313 or NFPA 13D, shall be installed in Residential Reconstruction projects of 2,500 square feet or greater, or the structure increases height from one-story to a two-story single-family dwelling and is greater than 2,500 square feet.

E. Section R311.7.5.1, Risers, add:

The minimum stair riser height shall be no less than 4 inches (102 mm).

F. Section R403.1.6, Foundation anchorage, is modified to read as follows:

R403.1.6 Foundation anchorage. Wood sill plates and wood walls supported directly on continuous foundations shall be anchored to the foundation in accordance with this section.

Cold-formed steel framing shall be anchored directly to the foundation or fastened to wood sill plates in accordance with Section R505.3.1 or R603.3.1, as applicable. Wood sill plates supporting cold-formed steel framing shall be anchored to the foundation in accordance with this section.

Wood sole plates at all exterior walls on monolithic slabs, wood sole plates of braced wall panels at building interiors on monolithic slabs and all wood sill plates shall be anchored to the foundation with minimum 5/8-inch diameter (15.875 mm) anchor bolts spaced not greater than 6 feet (1829 mm) on center or approved anchors or anchor straps spaced as required to provide equivalent anchorage to 5/8-inch diameter (15.875 mm) anchor bolts.

Bolts shall extend not less than 7 inches (178 mm) into the concrete or grouted cells of concrete masonry units. The bolts shall be located in the middle third of the width of the plate. A nut and washer shall be tightened on each anchor bolt. There shall be notno fewer than two bolts per plate section with one bolt located not more than 12 inches (305 mm) or less than seven bolt diameters from each end of the plate section. Interior bearing wall sole plates on monolithic slab foundation that are not part of a braced wall panel shall be positively anchored with approved fasteners. Sill plates and sole plates shall be protected against decay and termites where required by Sections R304317 and R305318. Anchor

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1853
bolts shall be permitted to be located while concrete is still plastic and before it has set.

Where anchor bolts resist placement or consolidation of concrete around anchor bolts is impeded, the concrete shall be vibrated to ensure full contract between the anchor bolts and concrete.

Exceptions:

1. Walls 24 inches (610 mm) total length or shorter connecting offset braced wall panels shall be anchored to the foundation with notno fewer than one anchor bolt located in the center third of the plate section. and shall be attached to adjacent braced wall panels at corners as shown in Item 9 of Table R602.3(1).

Connection of walls 12 inches (305 mm) total length or shorter connecting offset braced wall panels to the foundation without anchor bolts shall be permitted. The wall shall be attached to adjacent braced wall panels at corners as shown in Item 9 of Table R602.3(1).

G. CRC Appendix Chapters AH, AJ, AK, AO, AQ, AT, AV, and AXBB, BF, BG, BH, BO, CI, CJ are selected and adopted. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019:

Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.050 Title 24, Part 3, California Electrical Code, with amendments and modifications.

Title 24, Part 3, California Electrical Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with the following amendments and modifications:

A. Section 89.108.4.1, Permits (a), add:

A California State Licensed Electrical Contractor is required to obtain the permit for all electrical work performed in all occupancies except single family dwellings, attached or detached garages, carports or accessory buildings.

B. Chapter 1, Article 100, Definitions: Approved, add:

Existence of a factory applied label or application of a field applied label by an agency listed on OSHA’s Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program approved by the AHJ to test and label is an alternate method of approval. See the list of recognized third party testing and labeling agencies.

C. Chapter 1, Article 100, Definitions: Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), add:

The Authority Having Jurisdiction is the Building Official of the City of San Carlos.

D. Section 705.20, Disconnecting means: Replace Item 3 “Located where readily accessible” with:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1854
All ESS and battery back-up power systems, not located at the building main power connection location, shall be provided with an emergency power off switch, readily accessible at the location of the main power disconnect for the structure it services. This switch shall be required to shut down all output conductors at the ESS or battery system at its source.
(Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.060 Title 24, Part 4, California Mechanical Code with appendices.

Title 24, Part 4, California Mechanical Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with the following selected appendices:

A. CMC Appendix Chapters B, C, D, F, and G are selected and adopted. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.070 Title 24, Part 5, California Plumbing Code with appendices.

Title 24, Part 5, California Plumbing Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with the following selected appendices:

A. CPC Appendix Chapters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, and K are selected and adopted. (Ord. 1553 § 2 (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.080 Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code with appendices.

Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with all appendices. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1570 § 2, 2021; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.090 Title 24, Part 7, California Wildland-Urban Interface Code..

Title 24, Part 7, the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, 2025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with all appendices.

Vacant. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh.

A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.100 Title 24, Part 8, California Historical Building Code.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1855
Title 24, Part 8, the California Historical Building Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.110 Title 24, Part 9, California Fire Code.

Title 24, Part 9, the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with amendments and modifications (San Carlos Fire Ordinance).

A. Adoption of the 2021 International Fire Code and the 2022 California Fire Code. These codes are hereby adopted in their entirety by the City of San Carlos, for the purposes of prescribing regulations governing the conditions hazardous to life and property and for protection from fire, hazardous materials, or explosion, contained within the 2021 International Fire Code and the 2022 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, including all appendix chapters with the exceptions of the following appendix chapters: A—Board of Appeals, E—Hazard Categories, F—Hazard Ranking, G—Cryogenic Fluids, J—Building Information Sign, L—Fire Fighter Air Replenishment Systems, M—High-Rise BuildingsRetroactive Automatic Fire Sprinkler Requirements, and the International Fire Code Standards, as compiled, recommended and published by the International Code Council (ICC). One (1) copy of said code and standards, including local amendments herein adopted and made part thereof, entitled “Amendments to the 2021 International Fire Code and the 2022 California Fire Code” have been, and are now, filed with the office of the Clerk for the City of San Carlos. The same are hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and from the date on which the ordinance codified in this chapter shall take effect, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the City of San Carlos Fire Department. Note: When sections noted in this section stipulate the IFC, this shall mean the 2021 Edition of the International Fire Code for non-State Fire Marshal regulated occupancies. When sections noted in this section stipulate the CFC, this shall mean the 2022 California Fire Code, for California State Fire Marshal regulated occupancies for both building and nonbuilding regulations.

B. Establishment and Duties of the Bureau of Fire Prevention. The International Fire Code and the California Fire Code, including International Fire Code Standards as adopted and amended herein, shall be enforced by the City of San Carlos Fire Department, and managed by the City of Redwood City Fire Department (Bureau of Fire Prevention), and shall operate under the direction of the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal of the Redwood City Fire Department. Both Fire Officers shall be known as the Fire Code Officials.

C. Definitions.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1856

1. Whenever the word “jurisdiction” is used in the International/California Fire Code, and Fire Code Standards, it is the City of San Carlos.

2. The party responsible for the enforcement of the International/California Fire Code and Fire Code Standards under the direction of the Fire Chief of the Redwood City Fire Department shall be the Fire Marshal.

3. Add the following definition:
“Fire Marshal” is the Fire Code Official of the Bureau of Fire Prevention.

D. Appeals. Whenever the Fire Code Official disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Fire Code Official to the City Council of the City of San Carlos. For State Fire Marshal regulated occupancies, see Section 111.2.5 of the California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24 CCR.

E. Penalties—109, 2021 IFC and 2022 CFC. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Code or standards hereby adopted, or fails to comply therewith, or who shall violate or fail to comply with any order made thereunder, or who shall build in violation of any detailed statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who shall fail to comply with such an order affirmed or modified by the Fire Code Official shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the court shall impose a fine not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment for not less than one hundred eighty (180) days or both.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, whenever violation of any section contained in this Code is punishable as a misdemeanor, the prosecuting attorney having jurisdiction to prosecute said misdemeanor may specify that the offense is an infraction and proceed with prosecution as an infraction, unless the defendant, at the time of his arraignment or plea, objects to the offense being made an infraction, in which event the complaint shall be amended to charge a misdemeanor and the case shall proceed on a misdemeanor complaint.

The imposition of one (1) penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or defects; and when not otherwise specified, each day that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1857

1. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions.

2. Due to the potential danger of the hazardous materials regulated under the International/California Fire Code, any person, firm, or corporation who violates any of the provisions of the International/California Fire Code shall be liable for civil penalties not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day for the first ten (10) days; and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for the next twenty (20) days; and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each day after twenty (20). This shall apply to each violation.

3. In addition to the penalties set out in this Code, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Code shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be summarily abated as such, and each day such condition continues shall be regarded as a new separate offense. The City of San Carlos shall also be permitted the right of recovering those funds, used to mitigate continuous, unabated hazards, which present a clear and present danger. The cost recovery fee shall be based on the actual hourly rate for Fire Department personnel, used in gaining compliance for those in violation.

F. Text Language and Local Amendments.

1. Chapter 1—Administration.
a. Section 104.10.3 is hereby added to read as follows:
104.10.3. New materials, processes, occupancies, requiring permits. The Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal shall act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any new materials, processes, or occupancies, which shall require permits, in addition to those now enumerated in the Fire Code. b. Sections 111.1, 111.2, 111.3, and 111.4 are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following language:

Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretations of this Code, and relief by way of appeal from the granting or denial of any permit, this shall be and hereby is created a Board of Appeals consisting of members of the City Council, to pass upon pertinent matters, who shall grant such relief or make such interpretation or explanation as may be necessary and proper pursuant to the provisions of this Code. The Fire Chief shall be an ex officio member and shall act as Secretary of the Board. The Board of Appeals shall be the San Carlos City Council. The Board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its investigations and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the Fire Chief, with

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1858
duplicate copy to the appellant, and may recommend to the executive body such new legislation consistent therewith.

Whenever the Fire Code Official/Fire Marshal disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Fire Code Official to the San Carlos City Council. Such appeal shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision being appealed and shall be in writing and filed with the City Clerk of the City of San Carlos. Said notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a payment of $100.00, payable to the City of San Carlos.

The notice of appeal shall:

1. Specify the substance and particulars of the decision being appealed.

2. Show the date of the decision.

3. Be signed by the appellant or his/her duly authorized agent.

4. Indicate the mailing address of the appellant.

Whenever a notice of appeal is filed with the City Clerk, the Clerk shall set the matter for the hearing at the earliest reasonable time and shall notify the appellant of the place, date and time for the hearing and consider the appeal.

The City Clerk shall give notice of the hearing to the appellant at least seven days prior to the time set for the hearing. Notice shall be given to the appellant by mailing said notice to the address shown on the notice of appeal.
c. Section 105.1.2.1—Added. Section 105.1.2.1 is hereby added to the Fire Code and shall read as follows:
105.1.2.1. Fees and Special Requirements.

The fees for permits and other services shall be as established by resolution of the San Carlos City Council. The fees shall be set as a cost recovery for services provided by the Fire Department staff and Redwood City Fire Department Management staff to review and inspect the intended activities, operations, or functions as stipulated by section 105.1.1 and section 105.1.2 “Types of Permits”. Subsection 2, Construction Permit is adopted as written by model code. Operational Permits as indicated in section 105, subsection 105.1.2, Sub-section 1 is “not” adopted as written by model code for this ordinance.

Section 105.1.1 is amended and enforceable as follows:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1859
105.1.1. Construction Permits Required and Fire Clearance Inspections. 105.1.1. Permits required by this Code for construction related provisions for fire and life safety that is under the responsibility of the fire department, shall be obtained upon approval of said construction plans and documents. This includes but is not limited to; architectural fire plan review, site plan review, automatic fire alarm systems, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire suppression systems, wildland urban intermix mitigation plans, and any other review of plans and specifications that require the approval of the Fire Code Official.
105.1.2. Fire clearance inspections are that maintenance type of fire code inspections performed to all occupancies that are under the jurisdictional enforcement powers of the City of San Carlos Fire Department.

Operational use permits “are not” issued on a regular or annual basis as per section 105.6 of the 2019 California Fire Code. Fire clearance inspections are designed to unify fire code operational use permits under one fire clearance inspection procedure, thereby; having one inspection inclusive of any potentially issued operational use permits. On a case- bycase basis, operational use permits may be issued when deemed necessary by the Fire Code Official.

All fire construction plan check and construction permit fees and fire clearance inspection fees must be paid to the City of San Carlos Permit Center prior to engaging in the listed activities, operations, or functions. A penalty for all permit payments delinquent after 30 days shall be a doubling of the original fee.

2. Chapter 2—Definitions.
a. Section 202, High Rise Structure Definition, is hereby amended to read as follows:
202 High Rise Structure. Every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access (see Section 403), except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250.

3. Chapter 3—General Fire Safety Precautions.
a. Section 307—Amended. Section 307 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following section:

Section 307.1. General: Open burning is strictly prohibited within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Carlos. Open burning does not include approved exterior fireplaces or barbecues that are used in a safe manner and used for cooking or warming

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1860
purposes only. The Fire Chief prohibits burning of trash or vegetation, except for fire hazard reduction purposes when deemed necessary to abate an immediate fire hazard or during wildland fire suppression activities.
b. Section 324 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
324 Car Stackers and Car Puzzler Systems. Car stackers and car puzzler systems are defined as manual, or automatic, rack vehicle storage systems designed to park cars vertically and / or horizontally inside structures or under canopies such that the vehicles are in close proximity to one another with limited access for firefighters. The configuration of the vehicles stored in these systems presents an exposure hazard from one vehicle to another in the event of a vehicle fire.

Parking areas inside buildings or under attached canopies equipped with car stackers or car puzzler systems shall be protected from above by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to a density of Extra Hazard Group 2. Standard coverage sidewall sprinklers, listed for Ordinary Hazard Group 2 shall be provided to protect each parking level, including the bottom levels. The maximum coverage of a sidewall sprinkler is 80 sq. ft. and the use of extended coverage sidewall heads for protection is prohibited.

The basic design area of application for the increased density fire sprinkler system protecting the car stacker or car puzzler systems shall be 2,500 square feet. The design area of application may be reduced upon approval by the fire code official but never less than 1,500 square feet if one-hour rated walls are provided between the stacker parking area and other standard parking stalls or storage areas, and the car stacker system is divided into a maximum of 1,000 square foot fire areas by one-hour rated fire barriers. Flow from all fire sprinkler heads, upright, pendant, and sidewall, at all levels, and located in the design area of application shall be included in the hydraulic calculations for the fire sprinkler system.

Car stackers and car puzzler systems installed inside structures or under attached canopies shall be provided with Manual Wet or Automatic Wet Standpipe connections at all points of access and at each parking level within the structure so that every part of the parking area is within 150 feet by hose pull of a standpipe connection.

Car stackers and car puzzler systems installed inside structures shall be provided with a mechanical smoke and heat removal system as per Section 910.4 of the California Fire Code. The smoke and heat removal system shall be automatically activated upon detection of fire by the fire alarm system. Section 910.4.4 is not applicable to this requirement.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1861
Car stacker and car puzzler systems installed outside structures that are open to the environment shall be configured to limit fire spread from one vehicle to another and from vehicles to adjacent structures. This shall be accomplished with one-hour fire rated barriers creating a maximum of 2500 square foot fire areas between stackers or puzzlers and by providing adequate setback from adjacent structures.

4. Chapter 5—Fire Service Features.
a. Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Exceptions 1.1 and 1.3 are not adopted.
503.1.1 Buildings and Facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45,720 mm) where any of the following conditions occur:

1.2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided.
b. Section 503.2.3 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. This is defined as Asphaltic Concrete or Concrete (including pervious concrete) installed over an adequate compacted roadbed to support the imposed loads (75,000 pounds) of fire apparatus. Any type of pavers, whether grouted or bedded in sand, or grass block type surfaces, are not approved for fire access roads or fire lanes. c. Section 507.1.1 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
507.1.1. Fire Main, Hydrant Specifications. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code, all water mains providing a water supply for fire protection, both to fire hydrants and to fire service systems, shall be not less than eight inches (8") in diameter

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1862
(inside measurement) provided, however, the Fire Code Official may require different sizes based on the conditions of the site, but in no case shall the fire service main be less than six inches (6") in diameter (inside measurement). Maintenance of privately-owned water mains, fire hydrants, or other fire service systems (collectively referred to as “Facilities”) shall be performed by, and be the responsibility of, the owners thereof, and the City shall assume no liability for damages to the Facilities in performing tests to, or in using, such Facilities. Appendix Table B105.1(1) is not adopted under this ordinance. Minimum fire flow for one- and two-family dwellings under 3,600 square feet shall be 1,000 gallons of water per minute with two-hour flow duration. Residual pressure shall not be less than 20 psi. For one- and two-family dwellings over 3,600 square feet, the required fire flow shall be 50% of the value in Appendix Table B105.1(2) with automatic fire sprinklers installed per Section 903.3.1.3 of the California Fire Code with a minimum flow requirement of 1,000 gallons of water per minute. Appendix Table B105.2 is amended to allow a maximum reduction in required fire flow of 50% of the value in Table B105.1(2) with a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for buildings other than one- and two-family residential dwellings with automatic fire sprinklers installed per Sections 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 of the California Fire Code. d. Section 507.5.1.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
507.5.1.1 Hydrant for standpipe systems and fire sprinkler systems. Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 or a fire sprinkler system complying with section 903.3.1.1 shall have a fire hydrant within 50 feet (15,240 mm) of the fire department connections (FDC) located on the same side of the roadway. e. Section 510.4.2.3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
510.4.2.3 Standby power. Emergency responder radio coverage systems shall be provided with dedicated standby batteries or provided with 2-hour standby batteries and connected to the facility generator power system in accordance with Section 1203. The standby power supply shall be capable of operating the emergency responder radio coverage system at 100-percent system capacity for a duration of not less than 24 hours. f. Section 510.6.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
510.6.1 Testing and proof of compliance. The owner of the building or owner’s authorized agent shall have the emergency responder radio coverage system inspected and tested annually by a fire department approved testing company or where structural changes occur including additions or remodels that could materially change the original field performance tests. Testing shall consist of but not be limited to the following:

1. In-building coverage test as described in Section 510.5.3.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1863

2. Signal boosters shall be tested to verify that the gain is the same as it was upon initial installation and acceptance or set to optimize the performance of the system.

3. Backup batteries and power supplies shall be tested under load of a period of 1 hour to verify that they will properly operate during an actual power outage. If within the 1-hour test period the battery exhibits symptoms of failure, the test shall be extended for additional 1- hour periods until the integrity of the battery can be determined.

4. Other active components shall be checked to verify operation within the manufacturer’s specifications.

5. At the conclusion of the testing, a report, which shall verify compliance with Section 510.5.4, shall be submitted to the fire code official.

5. Chapter 9—Fire Protection Systems and Equipment.
a. Section 901.1—Scope Amended. Add the following language to Section 901.1 of the 2022 CFC.

The Fire Code Official may require additional extinguishers, and/or extinguishers of different ratings for protection of special hazards or hazardous areas. The higher ratings may be permitted if in the opinion of the Fire Code Official, they are better suited to substantially protect or mitigate the hazard(s).
b. Section 901.6.3 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
901.6.3 Records. All contractors who service, test, install and/or maintain fire protection systems within the City of Redwood City are required to enroll and utilize the approved single-point repository service to file records of all system inspections, tests, and maintenance required by the referenced standards. This repository service shall be maintained and provided to the fire code official through a third-party inspection reporting system. Fees, as applicable, will be paid directly from the contractor to the approved single-point repository service vendor.
c. Section 903.2 of the Fire Code is hereby amended as follows:
903.2 New Construction. When the provisions of section 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 of the 2022 California Fire Code do not mandate automatic fire sprinkler system protection, and when the following occupancies are of new construction and the total square footage of the new building exceeds 2,500 square feet in size, or more than one-story in height, an automatic fire sprinkler system, shall be installed in the following occupancy classifications: Group A, Group B, Group E, (Non-public schools), Group F, Group H, Group I, Group M, Group R, and Group S occupancies.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1864
903.2 Existing Construction. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all locations of existing Group A, Group B, Group E (Non-public schools), Group F, Group H, Group I, Group M, Group R, and Group S occupancies, when the total square footage of the existing building exceeds 2,500 square feet in size, or is greater than onestory in height, and one or more of the following items apply:
a. Change to a more hazardous use/occupancy.
b. When the Fire Code Official determines that an automatic sprinkler system is necessary due to emergency vehicle access, fire load, occupant load or an existing condition which may hinder fire suppression efforts in the event of a fire or other perils. d. Section 903.2.8—Amended. Section 903.2.8 of the Fire Code is amended, and the following new sections are added:
903.2.8.(a) New Construction.

When the provisions of Section 903 of the Fire Code do not mandate automatic fire sprinkler system protection, an approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies. Installation of the sprinkler system shall conform to NFPA Standard 13R if the residential building is four stories or less in height and with the following additional protection:

1. Sprinklers shall be installed throughout garages, open attached porches, carports, large under-floor spaces that are of combustible construction, and accessible for storage use.

2. Sprinklers shall be installed throughout attic areas.

3. All sprinkler piping in attics shall be copper.
903.2.8(b) Group R, Division 3 Occupancies—New Construction.

An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as per sections R313.1 and R313.2 of the 2022 California Residential Code. Installation of the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be in accordance with section 903.3.1.3 (NFPA 13D) and with the following areas of the residence to be protected by automatic fire sprinklers:

1. Sprinklers shall be installed throughout garages, carports, and similar attached structures.

2. Pilot Sprinklers on metallic piping shall be installed in attic areas at the entry point into the attic, near heat sources, and near mechanical equipment installed in the attic. 903.2.8(c) Group R, Division 3 Occupancies—Existing Construction.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1865
An approved automatic fire sprinkler system meeting the design criteria as stipulated in section 903.1.3 of the Fire Code is required for existing Group R, Division 3 when the existing structure is demolished and is reconstructed to become 2,500 square feet or greater in size.

Demolished and Reconstruction means:

1. The building has been completely torn down to the foundation; the structure is being renovated and is made uninhabitable during said renovation or reconstruction. This includes the removal or inoperability of any or all the utilities to the building for a period of more than twenty-four consecutive hours. Utilities mean, water, electrical, natural gas, and sanitary sewer.

2. The structure increases height from one story to a two-story single-family dwelling and is greater than 2,500 habitable square feet.
e. Section 903.2.23 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
903.2.23—Automatic Sprinkler System Requirements for Type-IV A, B, and C Construction Types. Automatic sprinkler systems meeting section 903.3.1.1 of the fire code shall be installed throughout all new buildings built to Type-IV A, B, or C construction type. The design density for the automatic sprinkler system shall be a minimum design density of Ordinary Hazard Group-1 throughout the building regardless of use. f. Section 903.4.2 is hereby amended as follows:
903.4.2 Alarms. One exterior approved audible device, located on the exterior of the building in an approved location, shall be connected to each automatic sprinkler system.

Such sprinkler water-flow alarm devices shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. In addition, for automatic sprinkler systems installed under section 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, activation of all the interconnected single station smoke alarms throughout the residence is required. An acceptable alternative to interconnection to the smoke alarms is the installation of horn strobe devices in locations that will provide adequate notification to all sleeping rooms with at least one notification device per floor. Where a fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system.

Visible alarm notification appliances shall not be required except when required by Section 907.
g. Section 905.4 is hereby amended to read as follows:
905.4 Location of Class I Standpipe Hose Connections. Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all the following locations:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1866

1. In every required interior exit stairway, a hose connection shall be provided for each story above and below grade plane. Hose connections shall be located at the intermediate floor landing unless otherwise approved by the fire code official. h. Section 907.2.12.3.4 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
907.2.12.3.4 Multistoried, Mid- and High-Rise Building Safety Requirements. (a) Firefighters Communications Systems: Are not allowed in lieu of an approved ERRCS, but when required by the Fire Code Official, buildings six (6) or more stories in height, firefighter’s communication systems shall be installed in accordance with the following requirements:
(i) One access jack shall be provided at each stairwell landing and two (2) access jacks shall be provided in a lobby area of the building in plain view of elevator doors, and in any event at locations and according to specifications subject to the approval of the Fire Code Official.
(ii) One telephone set shall be provided at each floor of the building, provided that such telephone sets shall be in the lobby area at a location and according to specifications subject to the approval of the Fire Code Official.
(iii) One additional telephone set shall be provided with not less than five hundred feet (500') of telephone cord and shall be maintained on a roller device providing convenient portability. Said telephone set shall likewise be maintained at a location and according to specifications approved by the Fire Code Official.
(b) Emergency Planning and Information: Buildings and occupancy groups specified in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 3.09, and buildings with four (4) or more stories in height shall have posted a floor plan sign which shall provide emergency procedures at every stairway landing, elevator landing, and immediately inside all public entrances to the building. Information contained in the floor plan signs shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

1. Location of exits and fire alarm initiating stations.

2. Description of fire alarm sounds and appearance.

3. Fire Department emergency telephone number “911.”

4. Prohibition of the use of elevators during emergencies.

5. Instructions to be followed by ambulatory, non-ambulatory, and disabled persons in the event of an emergency.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1867

6. Notation “you are here” or other readily understandable marking specifying the location on the floor plan sign.

Floor plan signs shall be printed in a non-decorative lettering which shall not be less than three-sixteenths of an inch (3/16") in height and shall provide a sharp contrast with the background. The information shall accurately depict the layout of the floor where the sign is located. Signs shall be mounted as specified by the California Building Code. (c) Public Address System. In buildings four (4) or more stories in height, a public address system shall be installed for the exclusive use of Fire Department personnel, peace officers, or other City enforcement personnel according to specifications approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Controls for, and access to, such system shall be installed on the ground floor of the building at a location subject to the approval of the fire code official. (d) Fire Equipment enclosure: Buildings of four (4) or more stories in height, a secure cabinet or other enclosed area shall be provided as directed by the Fire Code Official for housing fire equipment. Fire equipment required to be provided by the property owner or developer shall be at the direction of the Fire Code Official. i. Section 913.2.3 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
913.2.3 Alternate source of power. Notwithstanding the availability of a public utility to provide electric service for a fire pump, electrically driven fire pumps shall be provided with an alternate source of power in accordance with NFPA 20 due to foreseeable extended electrical service interruptions along the California Power Grid due to high demand, high heat, Public Safety Power Shutoffs, and damage to the power grid caused by destructive natural events such as wildfires, high winds, and earthquakes.

6. Chapter 49—Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Areas. a. Section 4901.1. Amended to include:

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAP:

The City Council hereby adopts and designates the most recent Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones map as recommended by the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and retained on file, or via the internet, and made available at the offices of the Fire Chief and Building Official of the City of San Carlos. Buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions as stipulated by the City of San Carlos Building Official, the California Building Code Chapter 7A, or the California Residential Code Section R337.

7. Chapter 56—Explosives Fireworks (Pyrotechnical Special Effects Materials).

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1868
a. Section 5601.1 Amended. Chapter 5601.1 is hereby amended, and the following sections are added:
5601.1(a) All non-professional fireworks listed by the California State Fire Marshal as “Safe and Sane” are prohibited within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Carlos on a year-round basis.
5601.1(b) All professional pyrotechnical devices used for public display, or special effects, shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 19 and the applicable sections of the State of California Fire Code.

Permits for public display and/or special effects shall be obtained from the City of San Carlos. Application for a use permit shall be submitted to the Fire Department thirty days prior to the event.

8. Chapter 80, 13-22, Section 27.10 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Fire sprinkler systems for the protection of laboratory buildings shall be designed and installed in accordance with this standard, with a minimum design density of Ordinary Hazard Group II.

9. Chapter 80, 13D-22, Section 6.2.2(2) of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) A stand-alone tank is permitted only if the following conditions are met:
(a) The pump shall be connected to a 220-volt circuit breaker shared with a common household appliance (e.g., range, oven, dryer),
(b) The pump shall be a stainless steel 220-volt pump,
(c) A valve shall be provided to exercise the pump. The discharge of the exercise valve shall drain to the tank, and
(d) A sign shall be provided stating: “Valve must be opened monthly for 5 minutes.” (e) A means for automatically refilling the tank level, so that the tank capacity will meet the required water supply duration in minutes, shall be provided. (f) A test connection shall be provided downstream of the pump that creates a flow of water equal to the smallest sprinkler on the system. The connection shall return water to the tank.
(g) Any disconnecting means for the pump shall be approved.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1869
(h) A method for refilling the tank shall be piped to the tank. (i) A method of seeing the water level in the tank shall be provided without having to open the tank.
(j) The pump shall not be permitted to sit directly on the floor. (k) A stand-alone tank and pump are only allowed in areas not served by a municipal water system and only by approval of the fire code official.

10. Chapter 80, 13D-22, Section 8.3.4 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

8.3.4 Sprinklers shall not be required in detached garages, open attached porches with no habitable space above, carports with no habitable space above, and similar structures. (Ord. 1590 §§ 3 – 8, 2022; Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1554 §§ 3 – 8, 2019: Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1512 §§ 3 – 8, 2016; Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013; Ord. 1469 §§ 3 – 8, 2013; Ord. 1432 §§ 1 – 5, 2011: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.120 Title 24, Part 10, California Existing Building Code.

Title 24, Part 10, the California Existing Building Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.125 Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

Title 24, Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference., with the following amendments and modifications:

A. Section 202 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to add definitions as follows:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Residential buildings that entirely consist of units below market rate and whose rents or sales prices are governed by local agencies to be affordable based on area median income.

ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING. A building that contains no combustion equipment or plumbing for combustion equipment serving space heating (including fireplaces), water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances (including barbeques), and clothes drying, within the building or building property lines, and instead uses electric heating appliances for service.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1870
AUTOMATIC LOAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ALMS). A control system designed to manage load across one or more electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), circuits, panels and to share electrical capacity and/or automatically manage power at each connection point.

ALMS systems shall be designed to deliver no less than 3.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 16-ampere) to each EV Capable, EV Ready or EVCS space served by the ALMS, and meet the requirements of California Electrical Code Article 625. The connected amperage to the building site for the EV charging infrastructure shall not be lower than the required connected amperage per California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24 Part 11.

ALTERATION OR ALTER. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair for the purpose of maintenance or addition.

COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT. Any equipment or appliance used for space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying and/or lighting that uses fuel gas.

DIRECT CURRENT FAST CHARGING (DCFC). A parking space provided with electrical infrastructure that meets the following conditions:
i. A minimum of 48 kVa (480 volt, 100-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) located within three (3) feet of the parking space providing a minimum capacity of 80 ampere.

ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE. A device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVCS). A parking space that includes installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at an EV Ready space. An EVCS space may be used to satisfy EV Ready space requirements. EVSE shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (EVSE). The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle charging connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.

FUEL GAS. A gas that is natural, manufactured, liquefied petroleum, or a mixture of these.

LEVEL 2 EV CAPABLE. A parking space provided with electrical infrastructure that meets the following requirements:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1871
i. Conduit that links a listed electrical panel with sufficient capacity to a junction box or receptacle located within three (3) feet of the parking space. ii. The conduit shall be designed to accommodate at least 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40- ampere) per parking space. Conduit shall have a minimum nominal trade size of 1 inch inside diameter and may be sized for multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code. Conduit shall be installed at a minimum in spaces that will be inaccessible after construction, either trenched underground or where penetrations to walls, floors, or other partitions would otherwise be required for future installation of branch circuits, and such additional elements deemed necessary by the Building Official.

Construction documents shall indicate future completion of conduit from the panel to the parking space, via the installed inaccessible conduit.
iii. The electrical panel shall reserve a space for a 40-ampere overcurrent protective device space(s) for EV charging, labeled in the panel directory as “EV CAPABLE.” iv. Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes.
v. The parking space shall contain signage with at least a 12" font adjacent to the parking space indicating the space is EV Capable.

LEVEL 1 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of 2.2 kVa (110/120 volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere.
iii. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) at each parking space.

LEVEL 2 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 30-ampere.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1872
LOW POWER LEVEL 2 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of 4.1 kVA (208/240 Volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere.
iii. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) at each parking space.

B. Section 4.106.4 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

SECTION 4

RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES

4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. New construction and shall comply with Sections 4.106.4.1, 4.106.4.2, or 4.106.4.3 to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625. For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Exceptions:

1. On a case-by-case basis, where the local enforcing agency has determined EV charging and infrastructure are not feasible based upon one or more of the following conditions:

1.1. Where there is no local utility power supply or the local utility is unable to supply adequate power.

1.2. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 4.106.4, may increase construction cost by an average of $4,500 per parking space for market rate housing or $400 per parking space for Affordable Housing. EV infrastructure shall be provided up to the level that would not exceed this cost for utility service.

2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) without additional parking facilities.

C. Section 4.106.4.1 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1873

4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings, town houses with private garages. One parking space provided shall be a Level 2 EV Ready space. If a second parking space is provided, it shall be provided with a Level 1 EV Ready space.

D. Section 4.106.4.2 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended:

4.106.4.2 New multi-family dwellings with new residential parking facilities. Requirements apply to parking spaces that are assigned or leased to individual dwelling units, as well as unassigned residential parking. Visitor or common area parking is not included.

4.106.4.2.1 New Construction. Forty percent (40%) of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Sixty percent (60%) of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be provided with at minimum a Level 1 EV Ready space. EV ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A. EVCS shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B.

Mechanical parking systems shall have sufficient panel capacity to support 1.4kW to all of the mechanical parking stalls with pre-wiring to the mechanical parking system from the panel.

Note: The total number of EV spaces should be one-hundred percent (100%) of dwelling units or one-hundred percent (100%) of parking spaces, whichever is less.

E. Section 4.106.4.2.2 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

4.106.4.2.2 Existing Buildings.

1. When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten percent (10%) of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be Level 2 EV Ready.

F. Section 4.106.4.3 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section 4.106.4.2 shall comply with Section 4.106.4.3.

Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public accommodations, public housing, motels, and hotels shall not be required to comply with this section. See California Building Code, Chapter 11B, for applicable requirements.

4.106.4.3.1 Location. EVCS shall comply with at least one of the following options:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1874

1. The charging space shall be located adjacent to an accessible parking space meeting the requirements of the California Building Code, Chapter 11A, to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking space.

2. The charging space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined in the California Building Code, Chapter 2, to the building.

Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations designed and constructed in compliance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B, are not required to comply with Section

4.106.4.3.1 and Section 4.106.4.3.2, Item 3

4.106.4.3.2 Dimensions. The charging spaces shall be designed to comply with the following:

1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm).

2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet (2743 mm).

3. One in every 25 charging spaces, but not less than one, shall also have an 8- foot (2438 mm) wide minimum aisle. A 5-foot (1524 mm) wide minimum aisle shall be permitted provided the minimum width of the EV space is 12 feet (3658 mm). a. Surface slope for this EV space and the aisle shall not exceed 1 unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2.083 percent slope) in any direction.

Exception: Where the City of San Carlos Planning and Building Department Zoning Regulations for parking space dimension requirements are less than the minimum requirements stated in this section 4.106.4.3.2, and the compliance with which would be infeasible due to particular circumstances of a project, an exception may be granted while remaining in compliance with California Building Code Section Table 11B-228.3.2.1 and 11B-812, as applicable.

G. Section 4.106.4.4 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

4.106.4.4 Direct current fast charging stations. One DCFC may be substituted for up to five (5) EVCS to meet the requirements of 4.106.4.1 and 4.106.4.2. Where ALMS serve DCFC stations, the power demand from the DCFC shall be prioritized above Level 1 and Level 2 spaces.

H. Section 4.106.5 of the Green Building Standards Code is added and shall read as follows:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1875

4.106.5 All-electric buildings. New construction buildings and qualifying alteration projects shall comply with Section 4.106.5.1 or 4.106.5.2 so that they do not use combustion equipment or are ready to accommodate installation of electric heating appliances.

4.106.5.1. New construction and qualifying alteration projects. All newly constructed buildings shall be all-electric buildings. Alterations that include replacement or addition of over 50 percent of the existing foundation for purposes other than a repair or reinforcement as defined in California Existing Building Code Section 202; or where over 50 percent of the existing framing above the sill plate is removed or replaced for purposes other than repair, shall be all-electric buildings. If either of these criteria are met within a three-year period, measured from the date of the most recent previously obtained permit final date, the project shall be subject to the all-electric buildings requirements.

Tenant improvements shall not be considered new construction. The final determination whether a project meets the definition of substantial reconstruction/alteration shall be made by the local enforcing agency.

Exceptions:

1. All residential buildings except Multi-Unit Residential buildings as defined by the San Carlos Municipal Code 18.40.020 may contain non-electric indoor and outdoor Cooking Appliances and indoor and outdoor Fireplaces.

2. If an applicant establishes by substantial evidence that an All-Electric Building is infeasible for the project due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances particular to the project, then the Building Official may grant a modification. The design professional shall submit findings demonstrating a unique reason that makes the technical code impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the technical code, the modification shall be as narrow as possible so as to effectuate as much of a reduction in natural gas as possible, and that such modification does not lessen health, life safety, and fire safety requirements or any degree of structural integrity. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2.

A building applicant may appeal the decision of the Building Official to the City Council.

The City Council’s decision on the appeal shall be final.

3. If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1876
and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2.

Note: Attached Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units as defined by the San Carlos Municipal Code 18.40.020 are not considered new construction and are not subject to the All-Electric building requirements unless the alteration to the existing residence includes replacement of over 50% of the existing foundation for purposes other than a repair or reinforcement as defined in California Existing Building Code Section 202; or when over 50% of the existing framing above the sill plate is removed or replaced for purposes other than repair. If either of these criteria are met within a 3-year period, measured from the date of the most recent previously obtained permit final date, that structure is considered new construction and shall be subject to the All-Electric building requirements.

4.106.5.2. Requirements for combustion equipment.

Where combustion equipment is allowed per Exceptions under 4.106.5.1, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electrical heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor:

1. Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electrical heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and

2. Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and

3. Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (i.e “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and

4. Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electrical heating appliances. The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1877
heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.

I. Section 5.106.1.3 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

SECTION 5

NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES

5.106.1.3. All-electric buildings. New construction buildings and qualifying alteration projects shall comply with Section 5.106.13.1 or 5.106.13.2 so that they do not use combustion equipment or are ready to facilitate future electrification.

5.106.1.3.1. New construction and qualifying alteration projects. All newly constructed buildings shall be all-electric buildings. Alterations that include replacement of over 50 percent of the existing foundation for purposes other than a repair or reinforcement as defined in California Existing Building Code Section 202; or where over 50 percent of the existing framing above the sill plate is removed or replaced for purposes other than repair, shall be all-electric buildings. If either of these criteria are met within a three-year period, measured from the date of the most recent previously obtained permit final date, the project shall be subject to the all-electric buildings requirements.

Exceptions:

1. Laboratory areas with Non-Residential Buildings may contain non-electric Space Conditioning Systems. To take advantage of this exception, an applicant shall provide third party verification that the All-Electric space heating requirement is not cost effective and feasible. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2.

2. Non-residential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant open to the public or an employee commercial kitchen containing cooking facilities with the purpose of preparing and serving food for employees and visitors may apply to the Building Official for a modification to install gas-fueled cooking appliances. This exception does not apply to typical employee breakrooms or other self-service kitchens. This request must be based on a business-related reason to cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source. The Building Official may grant this modification if he or she finds the following:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1878

1. There is a business-related reason to cook with a flame; and

2. This need cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source; and

3. The applicant has employed reasonable methods to mitigate the greenhouse gas impacts of the gas-fueled appliance; and

4. The applicant shall comply with 5.106.1.3.2.

3. If an applicant establishes by substantial evidence that an All-Electric Building is infeasible for the project due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances particular to the project, then the Building Official may grant a modification. The design professional shall submit findings demonstrating a unique reason that makes the technical code impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the technical code, the modification shall be as narrow as possible so as to effectuate as much of a reduction in natural gas as possible, and that such modification does not lessen health, life safety, and fire safety requirements or any degree of structural integrity. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2.

A building applicant may appeal the decision of the Building Official to the City Council.

The City Council’s decision on the appeal shall be final.

4. If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2.

The Building Official shall have the authority to approve alternative materials, design and methods of construction or equipment per California Building Code Section 104.

5.106.1.3.2. Requirements for combustion equipment.

Where combustion equipment is allowed per exceptions under Section 5.106.1.3.1, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electrical heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1879
receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and

2. Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and

5. Physical space for future electrical heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electrical heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.

J. Section 5.106.5.3 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

5.106.5.3 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging. [N] Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code.

Exceptions:

1. On a case-by-case basis where local enforcing agency has determined compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following conditions:
a. Where there is no local utility power supply.
b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power. c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcement agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may increase construction cost by an average of $4,500 per parking space. EV infrastructure shall be provided up to the level that would not exceed this cost for utility service.

2. Parking spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems are not required to comply with this code section.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1880
K. Section 5.106.5.3.1 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

5.106.5.3.1 Nonresidential Occupancy Class B Offices—Shared Parking Space

5.106.5.3.1.1 New Construction. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 1 EV Ready spaces.

Thirty percent (30%) of parking spaces provided shall be EV Capable.

L. Section 5.106.5.3.2 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

5.106.5.3.2 Hotel and Motel Occupancies—Shared Parking Facilities.

5.106.5.3.2.1 New Construction. Five percent (5%) of parking spaces provided shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Twenty-five percent (25%) of parking spaces provided shall be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready space. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EV Capable.

M. Section 5.106.5.3.3 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

5.106.5.3.3 All Other Nonresidential Occupancies—Shared Parking Facilities.

5.106.5.3.3.1 New Construction. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EV Capable.

N. Section 5.106.5.3.4 of the Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

5.106.5.3.4 Direct current fast charging stations. One DCFC may be substituted for up to five (5) EVCS to meet the requirements of 5.106.5.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2, and 5.106.5.3.3. Where ALMS serve DCFC stations, the power demand from the DCFC shall be prioritized above Level 1 and Level 2 spaces.
(Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1570 § 3, 2021; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1448 § 3, 2012: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010; Ord. 1422 § 3, 2010)

15.04.130 Title 24, Part 12, California Referenced Standards Code.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1881
Title 24, Part 12, the California Referenced Standards Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.140 1997 Uniform Building Security Code.

The 1997 Uniform Building Security Code is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.150 20212024 International Property Maintenance Code.

The 20212024 International Property Maintenance Code is hereby adopted by reference, with the following amendments and modifications:

A. Section 101.1. Insert [City of San Carlos].

B. Section 103.1103.5. Insert [San Carlos Building Division].First violation, $100 per violation; Second violation of the same ordinance within 36-months, $200 per violation; Each additional violation of the same ordinance within 36-months, $500 per violation].

C. Section 106111. Means of appeal,appeals is deleted in its entirety. Reference applicable San Carlos Municipal Code Section for means of appeal.

D. Section 112.4. Insert [Two times the building permit fee] and delete “dollars or more than [AMOUNT] dollars.”
DE. Section 302.4. Insert [Twelve (12) inches].

EF. Section 304.14. Insert [January 1] to [December 31].

FG. Section 602.3. Insert [January 1] to [December 31].

GH. Section 602.4. Insert [January 1] to [December 31]. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.160 Safety Assessment Program (SAP) placards.

The Safety Assessment Program (SAP) placards are hereby adopted and establish standard placards to be used to indicate the condition of a structure for continued occupancy. This section further authorizes the Building Official and his or her authorized representatives to post the appropriate placard at each entry point of a building or structure upon completion of a safety assessment.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1882
A. Application. The provisions of this section are applicable to all buildings and structures of all occupancies regulated by the City of San Carlos. The City Council may extend the provisions as necessary.

B. Definitions. “Safety assessment” means a visual nondestructive examination of a building or structure for the purpose of determining the condition for continued occupancy.

C. Placards. The following are general descriptions of the official City of San Carlos placards to be used to designate the condition for continued occupancy for buildings or structures. The actual placards shall be in a form approved by the City Manager and substantially similar in substance to the following:

1. “INSPECTED—Lawful Occupancy Permitted” is to be posted on any building or structure wherein no apparent structural hazard has been found. This placard is not intended to mean that there is no damage to the building or structure. This placard shall be green.

2. “RESTRICTED USE” is to be posted on each building or structure that has been damaged wherein the damage has resulted in some form of restriction to the continued occupancy. The individual who posts this placard will note in general terms the type of damage encountered and will clearly and concisely note the restrictions for continued occupancy. This placard shall be yellow.

3. “UNSAFE—Do Not Enter or Occupy” is to be posted on each building or structure that has been damaged such that continued occupancy poses a threat to life safety. Buildings or structures posted with this placard shall not be entered under any circumstances except as authorized in writing by the Building Official or his or her authorized representative.

Safety assessment teams shall be authorized to enter buildings posted with a red placard at any time. This placard shall not be used or considered as a demolition order. The individual who posts a red placard shall note in general terms the type of damage encountered. This placard shall be red.

The name of the jurisdiction, its address, and phone number shall be included on each placard posted.

Once a placard has been attached to a building or structure, it shall not be removed, altered, or covered except by an authorized representative of the Building Official, or upon written notification by the Building Official.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to alter, remove, cover, or deface a posted placard unless authorized by this section. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 §

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1883
2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013:

Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

15.04.170 Findings.

The following findings have been made:

A. Geologic. The City of San Carlos is located near a very active seismic area, seismic zone E (previously known as seismic zone 4). The entire City is two (2) to seven (7) kilometers from the San Andreas Fault, a major active fault in California.

There are five (5) major soils types in the City from the bay to the hillsides. There is existing fill overlying unconsolidated Holocene Bay mud deposits. There is unconsolidated Holocene fine- to coarse-grained alluvial fan and basin deposits with a water table equal to or less than ten (10) feet. There is unconsolidated Holocene fine- to coarse-grained alluvial fan deposits with a water table equal to or greater than ten (10) feet. There are weak consolidated Pleistocene fine- to coarse-grained alluvial fan and basin deposits. There are colluvial and landslide deposits locally overlying sandstone and bedrock units.

There are high flooding hazards in two (2) of the five (5) soils types and moderate flooding hazards in two (2) of the five (5). There is high ground settlement potential in the area along the bay. There is high potential for seismically induced ground failure in the same area and moderate potential in the adjacent area.

There is a high potential for seismically induced ground shaking in all areas in the City.

There is a high potential for liquefaction in the area adjacent to the bay and moderate potential in the adjacent area. There is moderate potential for erosion and slope instability/landslides in approximately fifty (50) percent of the City. Expansive soils or bedrock varies in significance in over two-thirds (2/3) of the entire City.

These actions can cause great damage to structures in or on the ground. Gypsum wallboard and exterior Portland cement plaster have performed poorly during recent California seismic events. Cyclic seismic action testing has proven the limited seismic resistance of these materials.

Potential Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map.

Based upon these geologic findings, the City Council hereby adopts and designates the Harlan Tait Associates “Potential Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map, City of San Carlos, California” dated February 22, 1996, and Hazard Zone A and Hazard Zone B handouts, as minimum criteria to determine when a geotechnical investigation report (soils report) is required for development within the City.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1884
B. Climatic. The local climate is characterized by markedly delineated rainy and dry seasons, which tend to maximize the expansive characteristics of soil.

C. Topography. San Carlos topography includes mountain and foothill areas. The ground elevation rises over nine hundred (900) feet in less than one (1) mile in much of the City resulting in large areas of unstable, steep slopes. Upgraded structural provisions are required to construct housing on these unpredictable, unstable steep slopes. Upgraded automatic sprinkler provisions are required due to approximately one-quarter (1/4) of residential properties located in very high fire hazard severity zone.

D. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the ordinance codified in this chapter sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions in this chapter are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this chapter shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this chapter.

E. The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. (Ord. 1589 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 1553 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2019: Ord. 1513 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2016: Ord. 1470 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2013: Ord. 1428 § 2 (part), 2010)

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1885
ORDINANCE NO. 1630

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AMENDING SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.04.110 – TITLE 24, PART 9, CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, ADOPTING THE 2024 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE INCLUDING ALL ADOPTED STANDARDS.

The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby finds and declares as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the unique characteristics of topography, geological, and climatic conditions, and the balance of residential, commercial, and industrial properties in the areas served by the San Carlos Fire Department requires adoption of the 2024 International Fire Code (IFC) and the 2025 California Fire Code (CFC) and amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2011, the City of San Carlos and the City of Redwood City entered into agreement as participating agencies for fire and emergency services; and WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos is required to formally adopt a Fire Code, and to comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections, 13143.5, 13145, and 13146, for the enforcement provisions of the California Fire Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos currently shares fire protection services, including inspections and plan review, with the City of Redwood City and finds the need for a comprehensive San Carlos Fire Ordinance to ensure life-safety and protection for citizens and business owners of the City of San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, to promote consistency with enforcement of the Fire Code, and to make government operations more effective, the City Council desires to have a San Carlos Fire Ordinance that shares some of the same language and amendments with that of the City of Redwood City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings for the proposed amendments to the 2024 International Fire Code (IFC) and the 2025 California Fire Code in the San Carlos Municipal Code, Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes to further enhance and ensure fire and life-safety.

SECTION 2: The City Council makes the following findings:

1. Findings.

A. Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, the report contained herein is submitted as the “Findings of Fact” document regarding the adoption of the City of San Carlos (hereafter referred to as the City) Local Ordinance, which would adopt the 2024 International Fire Code and the 2025 California Fire Code, and the below mentioned local amendments. Under this adopting ordinance, specific amendments have been established, which are more restrictive in nature than those adopted by the State of California (State Building Standards Commission), commonly referred to as the California Code of Regulations Title 24.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1886
B. These local amendments to the 2024 International Fire Code and the 2025 California Fire Code have been recognized by the City as tools for addressing the fire and life-safety hazard problem, concerns, and future direction by which the City can establish and maintain an environment, which will afford a level of fire and life-safety to all who live and work within the City of San Carlos Fire Department jurisdictional boundaries.

C. Under the provisions of Sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, local amendments shall be based upon the following conditions: Climatic, Geological, and Topographical. The “Findings of Fact” contained herein shall address each of these situations and shall present the local situation, which, either singularly or in combination, caused the established amendments to be adopted.
1) Climatic:

The areas served by the city, on average, experience annual rainfall between 8 to 18 inches.

This rainfall can be expected between October and April of each year and is based on the 100-year weather almanac. However, during the summer and early fall months there is little, if any, measurable precipitation. During this dry period, the temperatures are usually between 70°- 90° with light to gusty westerly winds. These drying winds, mixed with the natural vegetation, which is dominant throughout the area, create hazardous fuel conditions, which further creates extensive grass and brushland fire risk. With residential developments encroaching into these wooded and grass, or brush-covered areas, wind and terrain-driven fires could have severe consequences to improved properties at risk. This has been demonstrated on several occasions in other areas of our State Fire/Rescue Aid Regions. 2) Geological:
a. Geographic Location. The area served by the city is in San Mateo County. This area is identified as being in the southern region of the county. b. Seismic Location. The relatively young geological processes that have created the San Francisco Bay region are still active today. Seismically, the City sits along the active San Andreas Fault, and is rated as a Seismic Zone E. c. Size and population. Areas served by the Fire Department encompass approximately 6 square miles and 28,000 people.
d. Roads and Streets. The number of vehicle miles driven is steadily increasing despite limited growth. Many older streets are narrow and steep. The impact of additional planned developments and increased traffic flow will continue to create an effect on the delivery of fire protection services.
e. Soil Conditions. The City of San Carlos lays in the southern end of San Mateo County. The areas closest to the Bay are overlain by unconsolidated fine silty clay, known as Bay Mud, which varies in thickness from a few feet to as much as thirty (30) feet. Bedrock lies beneath the area at depths generally three hundred (300) feet or more. The topography is essentially flat, dropping from an elevation of eight hundred (800) feet to sea level. The slope of the city extends upwards on the western side. Slopes range from (0) degrees to more than (20) degrees on some streets.
f. Vegetation. The hilly portion of the City of San Carlos contains trees, dense brush vegetation and a heavy growth of natural grasses. The city and surrounding areas suffer several wildland fires each year.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1887
3) Topographical:

The topographical element, as would be expected, is closely associated with the geographical element. With elevation changes in the city, development is of geographical concern. With these changes development is, of course, following the path of least resistance; thereby creating a meandering pattern. This does not lend itself to a good systematic street and road layout, which would promote easy traffic flow. It has, in fact, resulted in few major cross-town thoroughfares, which tend to be heavily congested, primarily during commute hours and seasonal periods of the year. “Pass-through” vehicular traffic in the cities, such as the areas of the Alameda de Las Pulgas, Brittan Ave., San Carlos Ave., Edgewood Road, and El Camino Real. This increased commute time increases traffic for eastbound and westbound vehicular movement to US 101 and Interstate 280. This creates barriers, which increases the response time of fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles.

The topography of the city is also being burdened by major structures. Employment areas are throughout the city, and the people who work in these complexes have added to the traffic congestion throughout the cities, thereby increasing fire apparatus response times.

Inherent delays caused by the traffic patterns to many of these types of projects make it necessary to mitigate this problem by requiring additional built-in automatic fire protection and detection systems that provide early detection and initial control of fires until the arrival of the fire department.

As a result of the “Findings of Fact,” which identify the various climatic, geographical, and topographical elements, additional requirements as specified in the amendments to the adopting ordinance for the 2024 International Fire Code and the 2025 California Fire Code by the City, are considered reasonable and necessary modifications. The experiences of several disastrous urban-wildland interface fires within Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Monterey Sonoma, Napa, and Contra Costa Counties have demonstrated the need for other fire protection features/regulations. While it is clearly understood that the adoption of such regulations may not prevent the incidence of fire, the implementation will reduce the severity and potential loss of life and property of those fires which do occur.

SECTION 3: Chapter 15.04, Sections 15.04.110 of the San Carlos Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.

SECTION 4: Severability. That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published Pursuant to Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California and shall take effect and be in full force from and after thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption but no sooner than January 1, 2026.

* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the 27th day of October 2025, and passed and adopted as an Ordinance of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1888
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: San Carlos Municipal Code Section 15.04.110 Updates (with Track Changes) AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1889
Exhibit A to Ordinance – Fire Code Edits
Chapter 15.04
TECHNICAL BUILDING CODES*
Sections:

15.04.010 Adoption of codes by reference—Copies on file.

15.04.020 City Council findings.

15.04.030 Title 24, Part 1, California Administrative Code.

15.04.040 Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2, with appendices, amendments, and modifications

15.04.045 Title 24, Part 2.5, California Residential Code with appendices, amendments, and modifications.

15.04.050 Title 24, Part 3, California Electrical Code, with amendments and modifications.

15.04.060 Title 24, Part 4, California Mechanical Code with appendices.

15.04.070 Title 24, Part 5, California Plumbing Code with appendices.

15.04.080 Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code with appendices.

15.04.090 Title 24, Part 7

15.04.100 Title 24, Part 8, California Historical Building Code.

15.04.110 Title 24, Part 9, California Fire Code with appendices.

15.04.120 Title 24, Part 10, California Existing Building Code.

15.04.125 Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

15.04.130 Title 24, Part 12, California Referenced Standards Code.

15.04.140 1997 Uniform Building Security Code.

15.04.150 2021 International Property Maintenance Code.

15.04.160 Safety Assessment Program (SAP) placards.

15.04.170 Findings.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1890
* Prior ordinance history: Ords. 1021, 1078, 1099, 1104 and 1267.

15.04.110 Title 24, Part 9, California Fire Code.

Title 24, Part 9, the California Fire Code, 20222025 Edition, is hereby adopted by reference, with amendments and modifications (San Carlos Fire Ordinance).

A.15.04.110.1 Adoption of the 20212024 International Fire Code and the 20222025 California Fire Code. These codes are hereby adopted in their entirety by the City of San Carlos, for the purposes of prescribing regulations governing the conditions hazardous to life and property and for protection from fire, hazardous materials, or explosion, contained within the 20212024 International Fire Code and the 20222025 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, including all appendix chapters with the exceptions of the following appendix chapters: A—Board of Appeals, E—Hazard Categories, F—Hazard Ranking, G—Cryogenic Fluids, J—Building Information Sign, L—Fire Fighter Air Replenishment Systems, M—HighRise Buildings-Retroactive Automatic Fire Sprinkler Requirements, O-Valet Trash and Recycling Collection in Group R-2 Occupancies, Q-Community Wildland Urban Interface Fire Hazard Evaluation Framework, and the International Fire Code Standards, as compiled, recommended and published by the International Code Council (ICC). One (1) copy of said code and standards, including local amendments herein adopted and made part thereof, entitled “Amendments to the 20212024 International Fire Code and the 20222025 California Fire Code” have been, and are now, filed with the office of the Clerk for the City of San Carlos. The same are hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and from the date on which the ordinance codified in this chapter shall take effect, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the City of San Carlos Fire Department. Note: When sections noted in this section stipulate the IFC, this shall mean the 20212024 Edition of the International Fire Code for non-State Fire Marshal regulated occupancies. When sections noted in this section stipulate the CFC, this shall mean the 20222025 California Fire Code, for California State Fire Marshal -regulated occupancies for both building and nonbuilding regulations.

B.15.04.110.2 Establishment and Duties of the Bureau of Fire Prevention. The International Fire Code and the California Fire Code, including International Fire Code Standards as adopted and amended herein, shall be enforced by the City of San Carlos Fire Department, and managed by the City of Redwood City Fire Department (Bureau of Fire Prevention), and shall operate under the direction of the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal of the Redwood City Fire Department. Both Fire Officers shall be known as the Fire Code Officials.

C.15.04.110.3 Definitions.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1891

1. Whenever the word “jurisdiction” is used in the International/California Fire Code, and Fire Code Standards, it is the City of San Carlos.

3. Add the following definition:
“Fire Marshal” is the Fire Code Official of the Bureau of Fire Prevention.

D.15.04.110.4 Appeals. Whenever the Fire Code Official disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Fire Code Official to the City Council of the City of San Carlos. For State Fire Marshal regulated occupancies, see Section 111.2.5 of the California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24 CCR.

E.15.04.110.5 Penalties—109, 20212024 IFC and 20222025 CFC. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Code or standards hereby adopted, or fails to comply therewith, or who shall violate or fail to comply with any order made thereunder, or who shall build in violation of any detailed statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who shall fail to comply with such an order affirmed or modified by the Fire Code Official shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the court shall impose a fine not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment for not less than one hundred eighty (180) days or both.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1892

1. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions.

F.15.04.110.6 Text Language and Local Amendments.

1.15.04.110.6.1 Chapter 1—Administration.
a.15.04.110.6.1.1 Section 104.10.3 is hereby added to read as follows:
104.10.3. New materials, processes, occupancies, requiring permits. The Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal shall act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any new materials, processes, or occupancies, which shall require permits, in addition to those now enumerated in the Fire Code. b.15.04.110.6.1.2 Sections 1121.1, 1121.2, 1121.3, and 1121.4 are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following language:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1893
duplicate copy to the appellant, and may recommend to the executive body such new legislation consistent therewith.

The notice of appeal shall:

1. Specify the substance and particulars of the decision being appealed.

2. Show the date of the decision.

3. Be signed by the appellant or his/her duly authorized agent.

4. Indicate the mailing address of the appellant.

The City Clerk shall give notice of the hearing to the appellant at least seven days prior to the time set for the hearing. Notice shall be given to the appellant by mailing said notice to the address shown on the notice of appeal.
c.15.04.110.6.1.3 Section 105.1.2.1—Added. Section 105.1.2.1 is hereby added to the Fire Code and shall read as follows:
105.1.2.1. Fees and Special Requirements.

Section 105.1.1 is amended and enforceable as follows:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1894
105.1.1. Construction Permits Required and Fire Clearance Inspections. 105.1.1. Permits required by this Code for construction related provisions for fire and life safety that isare under the responsibility of the fire department, shall be obtained upon approval of said construction plans and documents. This includes but is not limited to; architectural fire plan review, site plan review, automatic fire alarm systems, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire suppression systems, wildland urban intermix mitigation plans, and any other review of plans and specifications that require the approval of the Fire Code Official.
105.1.2. Fire clearance inspections are that maintenance type of fire code inspections performed to all occupancies that are under the jurisdictional enforcement powers of the City of San Carlos Fire DepartmentRedwood City Fire Department.

Operational use permits “are not” issued on a regular or annual basis as per section 105.6 of the 20192025 California Fire Code. Fire clearance inspections are designed to unify fire code operational use permits under one fire clearance inspection procedure, thereby; having one inspection inclusive of any potentially issued operational use permits. On a case- by- case basis, operational use permits may be issued when deemed necessary by the Fire Code Official.

3.15.04.110.6.2 Chapter 3—General Fire Safety Precautions. a.15.04.110.6.2.1 Section 307—Amended. Section 307 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following section:

Section 307.1. General.: Open burning is strictly prohibited within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Carlos. Open burning does not include approved exterior fireplaces or barbecues that are used in a safe manner and used for cooking or warming

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1895
purposes only. The Fire Chief prohibits burning of trash or vegetation, except for fire hazard reduction purposes when deemed necessary to abate an immediate fire hazard or during wildland fire suppression activities.
b.15.04.110.6.2.2 Section 324 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
324 Car Stackers and Car Puzzler Systems. Car stackers and car puzzler systems are defined as manual, or automatic, rack vehicle storage systems designed to park cars vertically and / or horizontally inside structures or under canopies such that the vehicles are in close proximity tonear one another with limited access for firefighters. The configuration of the vehicles stored in these systems presents an exposure hazard from one vehicle to another in the event of a vehicle fire.

Parking areas inside buildings or under attached canopies equipped with car stackers or car puzzler systems shall be protected from above by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to a density of Extra Hazard Group 2. Standard coverage sidewall sprinklers, listed for Ordinary Hazard Group 2, shall be provided to protect each parking level, including the bottom levels. The maximum coverage of a sidewall sprinkler is 80 sq. ft. and the use of extended coverage sidewall heads for protection is prohibited.

The basic design area of application for the increased density fire sprinkler system protecting the car stacker or car puzzler systems shall be 2,500 square feet. The design area of application may be reduced upon approval by the fire code officialFire Code Official but never less than 1,500 square feet if one-hour rated walls are provided between the stacker parking area and other standard parking stalls or storage areas, and the car stacker system is divided into a maximum of 1,000 square foot fire areas by one-hour rated fire barriers. Flow from all fire sprinkler heads, upright, pendant, and sidewall, at all levels, and located in the design area of application shall be included in the hydraulic calculations for the fire sprinkler system.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1896
Car stacker and car puzzler systems installed outside structures that are open to the environment shall be configured to limit fire spread from one vehicle to another and from vehicles to adjacent structures. This shall be accomplished with one-hour fire rated barriers creating a maximum of 2500 square foot fire areas between stackers or puzzlers and by providing adequate setbacksetbacks from adjacent structures.

4.15.04.110.6.3 Chapter 5—Fire Service Features.
a.15.04.110.6.3.1 Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Exceptions 1.1 and 1.3 isare not adopted.
503.1.1 Buildings and Facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

1. The fire code officialFire Code Official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45,720 mm) where any of the following conditions occur:

1.1. The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3.

2. Where approved by the Ffire Ccode Oofficial, fire apparatus access roads shall be permitted to be exempted or modified for solar photovoltaic power generation facilities. b.15.04.110.6.3.2 Section 503.2.3 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. This is defined as Asphaltic Concrete or Concrete (including pervious concrete) installed over an adequate compacted roadbed to support the imposed loads

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1897
(75,000 pounds) of fire apparatus. Any type of pavers, whether grouted or bedded in sand, or grass block type surfaces, are not approved for fire access roads or fire lanes. c.15.04.110.6.3.3 Section 507.1.1 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
507.1.1. Fire Main, Hydrant Specifications. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code, all water mains providing a water supply for fire protection, both to fire hydrants and to fire service systems, shall be not less than eight inches (8") in diameter (inside measurement) provided, however, the Fire Code Official may require different sizes based on the conditions of the site, but in no case shall the fire service main be less than six inches (6") in diameter (inside measurement). Maintenance of privately-owned water mains, fire hydrants, or other fire service systems (collectively referred to as “Facilities”) shall be performed by, and be the responsibility of, the owners thereof, and the City shall assume no liability for damages to the Facilities in performing tests to, or in using, such Facilities. Appendix Table B105.1(1) is not adopted under this ordinance. Minimum fire flow for one- and two-family dwellings under 3,600 square feet shall be 1,000 gallons of water per minute with two-hour flow duration. Residual pressure shall not be less than 20 psi. For one- and two-family dwellings over 3,600 square feet, the required fire flow shall be 50% of the value in Appendix Table B105.1(2) with automatic fire sprinklers installed per Section 903.3.1.3 of the California Fire Code with a minimum flow requirement of 1,000 gallons of water per minute. Appendix Table B105.2 is amended to allow a maximum reduction in required fire flow of 50% of the value in Table B105.1(2) with a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for buildings other than one- and two-family residential dwellings with automatic fire sprinklers installed per Sections 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 of the California Fire Code. d.15.04.110.6.3.4 Section 507.5.1.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
507.5.1.1 Hydrant for standpipe systems and fire sprinkler systems. Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 or a fire sprinkler system complying with section 903.3.1.1 shall have a fire hydrant within 50100 feet (30,48015,240 mm) of the fire department connections (FDC) located on the same side of the roadway.

For high-rise buildings, the fire hydrant shall be within 50 (15,240 mm) located on the same side of the roadway.
e.15.04.110.6.3.5 Section 510.4.2.3.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
510.4.2.3 Standby power. Emergency responder radio coverage systems shall be provided with dedicated standby batteries or provided with 2-hour standby batteries and connected to the facility generator power system in accordance with Section 1203. The standby power

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1898
supply shall be capable of operating the emergency responder radio coverage system at 100-percent system capacity for a duration of not less than 24 hours. 510.2 Emergency Responder Communication Coverage in Existing Buildings. Existing buildings, with the exception of individual single family or duplex residential structures, shall be provided with approved in-building, two-way emergency responder communication coverage for emergency responders as required in Chapter 11 or when an addition, tenant improvement, remodel, alterations, or modernization meets the definition of a substantial remodel, addition, or repair. f.15.04.110.6.3.6 Section 510.6.14.2.10 is hereby amended added to read as follows:
510.6.1 Testing and proof of compliance. The owner of the building or owner’s authorized agent shall have the emergency responder radio coverage system inspected and tested annually by a fire department approved testing company or where structural changes occur including additions or remodels that could materially change the original field performance tests. Testing shall consist of but not be limited to the following:

1. In-building coverage test as described in Section 510.5.3.

2. Signal boosters shall be tested to verify that the gain is the same as it was upon initial installation and acceptance or set to optimize the performance of the system.

3. Backup batteries and power supplies shall be tested under load offor a period of 1 hour to verify that they will properly operate during an actual power outage. If within the 1-hour test period the battery exhibits symptoms of failure, the test shall be extended for additional 1-hour periods until the integrity of the battery can be determined.

4. Other active components shall be checked to verify operation within the manufacturer’s specifications.

5. At the conclusion of the testing, a report, which shall verify compliance with Section 510.5.4, shall be submitted to the fire code officialFire Code Official. 510.4.2.10 UL Certification. New ERCES systems shall be UL-Certified. A Certificate of Completion and other documentation as listed in UL 2524 shall be provided for all new emergency responder communication system installations. It is the responsibility of the

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1899
building owner or owner’s representative to obtain and maintain a current and valid Certificate. 515.04.110.6.4. Chapter 9—Fire Protection Systems and Equipment. a. Section 901.1—Scope Amended. Add the following language to Section 901.1 of the 2022 CFC.

The Fire Code Official may require additional extinguishers, and/or extinguishers of different ratings for protection of special hazards or hazardous areas. The higher ratings may be permitted if in the opinion of the Fire Code Official, they are better suited to substantially protect or mitigate the hazard(s).
b.15.04.110.6.4.1 Section 901.6.3 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
901.6.3 Records. All contractors who service, test, install and/or maintain fire protection systems within the City of Redwood CitySan Carlos are required to enroll and utilize the approved single-point repository service to file records of all system inspections, tests, and maintenance required by the referenced standards. This repository service shall be maintained and provided to the fire code officialFire Code Official through a third-party inspection reporting system. Fees, as applicable, will be paid directly from the contractor to the approved single-point repository service vendor. c.15.04.110.6.4.2 Section 903.2 of the Fire Code is hereby amended as follows:
903.2 New Construction. When the provisions of section 903.2.1 through 903.2.112 of the 20252022 California Fire Code do not mandate automatic fire sprinkler system protection, and when the following occupancies are of new construction and the total square footage of the new building exceeds 2,500 square feet in size, or more than one-story in height, an automatic fire sprinkler system, shall be installed in the following occupancy classifications: Group A, Group B, Group E, (Non-public schools), Group F, Group H, Group I, Group M, Group R, and Group S occupancies.
903.2 Existing Construction. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all locations of existing Group A, Group B, Group E (Non-public schools), Group F, Group H, Group I, Group M, Group R, and Group S occupancies, when the total square footage of the existing building exceeds 2,500 square feet in size, or is greater than onestory in height, and one or more of the following items apply:
a. Change to a more hazardous use/occupancy.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1900
b. When the Fire Code Official determines that an automatic sprinkler system is necessary due to emergency vehicle access, fire load, occupant load or an existing condition which may hinder fire suppression efforts in the event of a fire or other perils. d.15.04.110.6.4.3 Section 903.2.8—Amended. Section 903.2.8 of the Fire Code is amended, and the following new sections are added:
903.2.8.(a) New Construction.

1. Sprinklers shall be installed throughout garages, open attached porches, carports, large under-floor spaces that are of combustible construction, and accessible for storage use.

2. Sprinklers shall be installed throughout attic areas.

3. All sprinkler piping in attics shall be copper.
903.2.8(b) Group R, Division 3 Occupancies—New Construction.

An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as per sections R313.1 and R313.2 of the 20222025 California Residential Code. Installation of the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be in accordance with section 903.3.1.3 (NFPA 13D) and with the following areas of the residence to be protected by automatic fire sprinklers:

1. Sprinklers shall be installed throughout garages, carports, and similar attached structures.

An approved automatic fire sprinkler system meeting the design criteria as stipulated in section 903.1.3 of the Fire Code is required for existing Group R, Division 3 when the existing structure is demolished and is reconstructed to become 2,500 square feet or greater in size.

Demolished and Reconstruction means:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1901

The design density for the automatic sprinkler system shall be a minimum design density of Ordinary Hazard Group-1 throughout the building regardless of use. f.15.04.110.6.4.4 Section 903.4.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
903.4.2 Alarms. One exterior approved audible device, located on the exterior of the building in an approved location, shall be connected to each automatic sprinkler system.

Visible alarm notification appliances shall not be required except when required by Section 907.
g.15.04.110.6.4.5 Section 905.4 is hereby amended to read as follows:
905.4 Location of Class I Standpipe Hose Connections. Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all the following locations:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1902
907.2.12.3.4 Multistoried, Mid- and High-Rise Building Safety Requirements. (a) Firefighters Communications Systems: Are not allowed in lieu of an approved ERRCS, but when required by the Fire Code Official, buildings six (6) or more stories in height, firefighter’s communication systems shall be installed in accordance with the following requirements:
(i) One access jack shall be provided at each stairwell landing and two (2) access jacks shall be provided in a lobby area of the building in plain view of elevator doors, and in any event at locations and according to specifications subject to the approval of the Fire Code Official.
(ii) One telephone set shall be provided at each floor of the building, provided that such telephone sets shall be in the lobby area at a location and according to specifications subject to the approval of the Fire Code Official.
(iii) One additional telephone set shall be provided with not less than five hundred feet (500') of telephone cord and shall be maintained on a roller device providing convenient portability. Said telephone set shall likewise be maintained at a location and according to specifications approved by the Fire Code Official.
(b) Emergency Planning and Information: Buildings and occupancy groups specified in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 3.09, and buildings with four (4) or more stories in height shall have posted a floor plan sign which shall provide emergency procedures at every stairway landing, elevator landing, and immediately inside all public entrances to the building. InformationThe information contained in the floor plan signs shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

1. Location of exits and fire alarm initiating stations.

2. Description of fire alarm sounds and appearance.

3. Fire Department emergency telephone number “911.”

4. Prohibition of the use of elevators during emergencies.

5. Instructions to be followed by ambulatory, non-ambulatory, and disabled persons in the event of an emergency.

6. Notation “you are here” or other readily understandable marking specifying the location on the floor plan sign.

Floor plan signs shall be printed in a non-decorative lettering which shall not be less than three-sixteenths of an inch (3/16") in height and shall provide a sharp contrast with the

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1903
background. The information shall accurately depict the layout of the floor where the sign is located. Signs shall be mounted as specified by the California Building Code. (c) Public Address System. In buildings four (4) or more stories in height, a public address system shall be installed for the exclusive use of Fire Department personnel, peace officers, or other City enforcement personnel according to specifications approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Controls for, and access to, such a system shall be installed on the ground floor of the building at a location subject to the approval of the fire code officialFire Code Official.
(d) Fire Equipment enclosure: Buildings of four (4) or more stories in height, a secure cabinet or other enclosed area shall be provided as directed by the Fire Code Official for housing fire equipment. Fire equipment required to be provided by the property owner or developer shall be at the direction of the Fire Code Official. i. Section 913.2.3 is hereby added to the Fire Code to read as follows:
913.2.3 Alternate source of power. Notwithstanding the availability of a public utility to provide electric service for a fire pump, electrically driven fire pumps shall be provided with an alternate source of power in accordance with NFPA 20 due to foreseeable extended electrical service interruptions along the California Power Grid due to high demand, high heat, Public Safety Power Shutoffs, and damage to the power grid caused by destructive natural events such as wildfires, high winds, and earthquakes.

15.04.110.6.4.6 Section 907.1.8 is hereby added to read as follows:
907.1.8 Certification. New fire alarm systems shall be UL-Certified. A Certificate of Completion and other documentation listed in NFPA 72 shall be provided for all new fire alarm systems installations. It is the responsibility of the building owner or owner’s representative to obtain and maintain a current and valid Certificate in accordance with UL 2524.

15.04.110.6.4.7 Section 907.1.9 is hereby added to read as follows:
907.1.9 Zone Transmittal. Fire alarm signals shall be transmitted by zone to the central required UL station monitoring company and retransmitted by zone to the public fire service communications center.

15.04.110.6.4.8 Section 907.1.10 is hereby added to read as follows:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1904
907.1.10 Service. All fire alarm systems shall be provided with Underwriters Laboratories central station monitoring service by the responsible party, including but not limited to the building's owner, property manager, or tenant(s).

15.04.110.6.4.9 Section 907.2.30 is hereby added to read as follows:
907.2.30 Multistoried, Mid and High Rise Building Safety Requirements.

A. Firefighters Communications Systems: Are not allowed in lieu of an approved ERRCS, but when required by the fire code official for buildings six (6) or more stories in height, firefighter's communication systems shall be installed in accordance with the following requirements:

1. One access jack shall be provided at each stairwell landing and two (2) access jacks shall be provided in a lobby area of the building in plain view of elevator doors, and in any event at locations and according to specifications subject to the approval of the fire code official.

2. One telephone set shall be provided at each floor of the building; provided, that such telephone sets shall be located in the lobby area at a location and according to specifications subject to the approval of the fire code official.

3. One additional telephone set shall be provided with not less than five hundred feet (500') of telephone cord and shall be maintained on a roller device providing convenient portability. Said telephone set shall likewise be maintained at a location and according to specifications approved by the fire code official.

B. Emergency Planning and Information: Buildings and occupancy groups specified in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 3.09, and buildings with four (4) or more stories in height shall have posted a floor plan sign which shall provide emergency procedures at every stairway landing, elevator landing, and immediately inside all public entrances to the building. Information contained in the floor plan signs shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1905

1. Location of exits and fire alarm initiating stations.

2. Description of fire alarm sounds and appearance.

3. Fire Department emergency telephone number "911."

4. Prohibition of the use of elevators during emergencies.

5. Instructions to be followed by ambulatory, non-ambulatory, and disabled persons in the event of an emergency.

6. Notation 'you are here' or other readily understandable marking specifying the location on the floor plan sign.

C. Public Address System: In buildings four (4) or more stories in height, a public address system shall be installed for the exclusive use of Fire Department personnel, peace officers, or other City enforcement personnel according to specifications approved by the Redwood City Fire Prevention Bureau. Controls for, and access to, such system shall be installed on the ground floor of the building at a location subject to the approval of the Fire Code Official.

D. Fire Equipment Enclosure: Buildings of four (4) or more stories in height, a secure cabinet or other enclosed area shall be provided as directed by the Fire Code Official for housing fire equipment. Fire equipment required to be provided by the property owner or developer shall be at the direction of the Fire Code Official.

15.04.110.6.4.9 Section 907.8.5 is hereby added to read as follows:
907.8.5 Alarm Response, Violations.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1906
A. In General. It shall be a violation of this Code to cause the Fire Department to respond to more than two (2) unintentional alarms in a sixty (60) day period at a commercial, industrial, or residential building.

B. Alarm System Testing, Maintenance or Repair. It is a violation of this Code to cause the Fire Department to respond to an alarm caused by alarm system testing, maintenance or repair.

C. As used in this Section, "unintentional alarm" means an alarm caused by equipment malfunction, operator inadvertence or operator negligence. "Unintentional alarm" does not include an alarm caused by alarm testing, maintenance or repair.

15.04.110.6.4.10 Section 907.9 is hereby amended to read as follows:
907.9 Where required in existing buildings and structures. An approved fire alarm system shall be provided in existing buildings and structures other than single family residential or duplex structures, where required in Chapter 11 or when an addition, tenant improvement, remodel, alterations, or modernization project meets the definition of a substantial remodel, addition, or repair within a five (5) year period.

15.04.110.6.4.11 Section 913.2.3 is hereby added to read as follows:
913.2.3 Alternate source of power. Notwithstanding the availability of a public utility to provide electric service for a fire pump, electrically driven fire pumps shall be provided with an alternate source of power in accordance with NFPA 20 due to foreseeable extended electrical service interruptions along the California Power Grid due to high demand, high heat, Public Safety Power Shutoffs, or damage to the power grid caused by destructive natural events such as wildfires, high winds, and earthquakes.

6. Chapter 49—Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Areas. a. Section 4901.1. Amended to include:

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAP:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1907
The City Council hereby adopts and designates the most recent Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones map as recommended by the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and retained on file, or via the internet, and made available at the offices of the Fire Chief and Building Official of the City of San Carlos. Buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions as stipulated by the City of San Carlos Building Official, the California Building Code Chapter 7A, or the California Residential Code Section R337.

7.15.04.110.6.5 Chapter 56—Explosives Fireworks (Pyrotechnical Special Effects Materials).
a. Section 5601.1 Amended. Chapter 5601.1 is hereby amended, and the following sections are added:
5601.1(a) All non-professional fireworks listed by the California State Fire Marshal as “Safe and Sane” are prohibited within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Carlos on a year-round basis.
5601.1(b) All professional pyrotechnical devices used for public display, or special effects, shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 19 and the applicable sections of the State of California Fire Code.

Permits for public display and/or special effects shall be obtained from the City of San Carlos. Application for a use permit shall be submitted to the Fire Department thirty days prior to the event.

8.15.04.110.7 Chapter 80

15.04.110.7.1 Chapter 80 NFPA 13-25 13-19.1.1.1 is hereby added to read as follows:
903.2.10.319.1.1.1. Parking Areas with Electric Vehicle Charging.

1. Design Standards: Fire sprinkler systems must be designed as Extra Hazard Group II (EH2).

2. Sprinkler Density: Minimum of 0.40 GPM/ft² over the area of the EV charging stations.

3. Design Area Extension: Sprinkler coverage must extend at least 3 feet beyond the perimeter of the EV parking spaces. For areas less than 2,500 SF, the design is not required to extend 15 feet beyond as typically required by this code.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1908

15.04.110.7.2 Chapter 80, 13-252, Section 27.10 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Fire sprinkler systems for the protection of laboratory buildings shall be designed and installed in accordance with this standard, with a minimum design density of Ordinary Hazard Group II.

9.15.04.110.7.3 Chapter 80, 13D-252, Section 6.2.2(2) of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) A stand-alone tank is permitted only if the following conditions are met:
(a) The pump shall be connected to a 220-volt circuit breaker shared with a common household appliance (e.g., range, oven, dryer),
(b) The pump shall be a stainless steel 220-volt pump,
(c) A valve shall be provided to exercise the pump. The discharge of the exercise valve shall drain to the tank, and
(d) A sign shall be provided stating: “Valve must be opened monthly for 5 minutes.” (e) A means for automatically refilling the tank level, so that the tank capacity will meet the required water supply duration in minutes, shall be provided. (f) A test connection shall be provided downstream of the pump that creates a flow of water equal to the smallest sprinkler on the system. The connection shall return water to the tank.
(g) Any disconnecting means for the pump shall be approved. (h) A method for refilling the tank shall be piped to the tank. (i) A method of seeing the water level in the tank shall be provided without having to open the tank.
(j) The pump shall not be permitted to sit directly on the floor. (k) A stand-alone tank and pump are only allowed in areas not served by a municipal water system and only by approval of the fire code official.

10.15.04.110.7.4 Chapter 80, 13D-252, Section 8.3.4 of the Fire Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1909

8.3.4 Sprinklers shall not be required in detached garages, open attached porches with no habitable space above, carports with no habitable space above, and similar structures.

8.j
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1910

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt Ordinance 1631 Adding Chapter 8.11 to the San Carlos Municipal Code Banning the Sale and Distribution of Nitrous Oxide, Also Known as “Whippets”, with Limited Exceptions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1631 adding Chapter 8.11 to the San Carlos Municipal Code banning the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide, also known as “whippets”, with limited exceptions.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no significant fiscal implications associated with this recommendation. Depending on the level of compliance, there could be costs associated with enforcement of the Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

Nitrous oxide is an odorless, colorless, non-flammable gas with certain legitimate uses, including medical or dental procedures in clinical settings, as well as industrial and food-product uses.

However, nitrous oxide is also misused and abused for recreational purposes, in part because it is easy to purchase from retail vendors and is relatively inexpensive.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the use of nitrous oxide (or “whippets”) as an inhalant for recreational drug purposes can result in a range of symptoms and serious health problems such as blood clots, paralysis, vitamin B12 deficiency, organ damage and failure, psychiatric disturbances (delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, depression), and in some cases, death.

In the State of California, it is illegal to sell and possess nitrous oxide products if the intention is to consume for intoxication or an altered state of mind. It also prohibits the sale of nitrous oxide to any person under the age of 18 years. The existing law also requires a seller of nitrous oxide to keep a record of persons who purchase nitrous oxide from it, requires the purchaser to sign the document and provide a complete residential address, and present a valid government-issued photo identification. The seller must also provide certain written warnings for the purchase.

At the October 27, 2025 meeting, City Council introduced Ordinance 1631 (Attachment 1 with Exhibit A) adding Chapter 8.11 to the Municipal Code banning the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide, with limited exceptions.

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1911
ANALYSIS:

The proposed Ordinance tracks the recently adopted San Mateo County ban on whippets in unincorporated areas. The City Ordinance would ban the sale, attempted sale, and distribution of nitrous oxide in the City limits of San Carlos, with limited exceptions. The exceptions include recognized legitimate uses of nitrous oxide such as:
• Nitrous oxide sold or distributed in food products;
• For uses related to vehicles;
• Wholesale purposes where not in violation of the Ordinance; • For use by medical providers;
• For research and development purposes; or
• Sale or distribution of nitrous oxide by pharmacies.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt Ordinance 1631 adding Chapter 8.11 to the San Carlos Municipal Code banning the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide, also known as “whippets”, with limited exceptions; or

2. Do not adopt Ordinance 1631; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance 1631 with Exhibit A – Chapter 8.11

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1912
ORDINANCE NO. 1631

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
ADDING CHAPTER 8.11 TO THE SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE BANNING

THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NITROUS OXIDE, ALSO KNOWN
AS “WHIPPETS”, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS.

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby find and declare as follows:

WHEREAS, nitrous oxide is an odorless, colorless, non-flammable gas with certain legitimate uses, including medical or dental procedures in clinical settings, as well as industrial and food-product uses. However, nitrous oxide is also misused and abused for recreational purposes, in part because it is easy to purchase from retail vendors and is relatively inexpensive; and
WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the use of nitrous oxide (or “whippets”) as an inhalant for recreational drug purposes can result in a range of symptoms and serious health problems such as blood clots, paralysis, vitamin B12 deficiency, organ damage and failure, psychiatric disturbances (delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, depression), and in some cases, death; and
WHEREAS, in the State of California, it is illegal to sell and possess nitrous oxide products if the intention is to consume for intoxication or an altered state of mind. It also prohibits the sale of nitrous oxide to any person under the age of 18 years. The existing law also requires a seller of nitrous oxide to keep a record of persons who purchase nitrous oxide from it, requires the purchaser to sign the document and provide a complete residential address, and present a valid government-issued photo identification. The seller must also provide certain written warnings for the purchase, and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo has adopted an ordinance banning the sale of nitrous oxide subject to limited exceptions in the unincorporated areas of the county and several of these areas are adjacent to or near the City of San Carlos. The new Chapter 8.11 of the San Caros Municipal Code is nearly identical and tracks the County’s ban, which will lead to consistent rules and enforcement in the City and unincorporated areas near San Carlos.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Carlos as follows:

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby approves adding a new Chapter 8.11 to the San Carlos Municipal Code banning the sale and distribution of nitrous oxide as set forth in Exhibit A.

SECTION 3: CEQA. This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1913
SECTION 4: Severability. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5: Publication and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption.
* * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the 27th day of October, 2025 and passed and adopted as an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of November, 2025 by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
____________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: Chapter 8.11 of the San Carlos Municipal Code AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1914
Exhibit A
CHAPTER 8.11 NITROUS OXIDE

8.11.010 Purpose and authority.

This Chapter is enacted pursuant to the City’s police powers to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, consistent with state and federal law. The purpose of this Chapter 8.11 is to advance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of San Carlos by eliminating retail access for recreational use of Nitrous Oxide, a gas that is dangerous when illicitly used as an intoxicant.

8.11.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Device” means any cartridge, compressed gas cylinder, apparatus, container, balloon, attachment, nozzle, or other object used to contain, dispense, or administer Nitrous Oxide.
(b) “Nitrous Oxide” means the colorless nonflammable gas sometimes identified as N20, which is sometimes used in aerosols and sometimes used as an anesthetic, and which, when inhaled, produces loss of sensibility to pain, often preceded by exhilaration and laughter and often used as an anesthetic in dentistry. Nitrous oxide is often informally or colloquially referred to as “laughing gas,” “NOX,” “galaxy gas,” or “whippits,” among other names.
(c) “Person” means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, limited liability company, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other entity.
(d) “Research and Development” means the systematic investigation, experimentation, or development undertaken to acquire new knowledge, test hypotheses, evaluate or improve products, processes, or technologies, or create new applications, when conducted by or under the supervision of (1) an accredited academic or vocational institution; (2) a business entity engaged in bona fide scientific, engineering, medical, or technological product development; or (3) a government agency or recognized nonprofit research organization. Research and Development does not include activities primarily intended for personal, recreational, or other nonscientific purposes. (e) “Wholesale Capacity” means sale of or distribution of Nitrous Oxide or a Device to dispense Nitrous Oxide to a Person that will use Nitrous Oxide or the Device in service or products for resale. Examples include, but are not limited to, commercial sale of dentistry supplies to dentists or dentistry offices, commercial sale of Devices for the use in food production or in a commercial kitchen, and/or commercial sale of Nitrous Oxide for the purpose of producing food products for commercial sale (e.g., whipped cream canisters).

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1915

8.11.030 Prohibition on Sale or Distribution of Nitrous Oxide. (a) Except as otherwise authorized by law or allowed under this Chapter, it is unlawful for any Person to sell, attempt to sell, offer, distribute, or otherwise provide to any Person Nitrous Oxide, a Device to dispense or administer Nitrous Oxide, or any Device that contains any quantity of Nitrous Oxide.
(b) Except as otherwise authorized by law or in circumstances described in Section

8.11.040 of this Chapter, possession by a Person of (i) any refillable or disposable Nitrous Oxide cylinder with a net content of six (6) pounds or more; (ii) an aggregate of two hundred (200) or more standard 8-gram Nitrous Oxide cartridges; or (iii) any equivalent amount of Nitrous Oxide shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the Person is attempting to sell or distribute Nitrous Oxide. This presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence of lawful use or exemption under this Chapter.

8.11.040 Exceptions.

This Chapter does not apply to the sale, attempt to sell, offer, distribution, or other manner of providing Nitrous Oxide, a Device containing Nitrous Oxide, or a Device to administer Nitrous Oxide in the following circumstances:
(a) If the Nitrous Oxide is contained in a food product for use as a propellant. (b) If the Nitrous Oxide or Device is being sold, attempted to besold, offered, or distributed in a Wholesale Capacity. This exemption only applies if the wholesaler does not know or have reason to know that the recipient intends to use the Nitrous Oxide or Device in violation of Section 8.11.030 of this Chapter. (c) If the Nitrous Oxide or Device that is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, or distributed is specifically designed for use in a vehicle to enhance the performance of the vehicle.
(d) If the Nitrous Oxide is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, or distributed specifically for the purpose of providing medical or dental care, by or at the direction and under the supervision of a medical or dental practitioner licensed by the State of California and in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. (e) If the Nitrous Oxide or Device is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, distributed, or dispensed by a pharmacist, pharmacist intern, or pharmacy as defined by California Business and Professions Code Sections 4030, 4036, and 4037, as may be amended, in the course of their duties as a pharmacist or pharmacist intern, or wholesalers licensed by the Board of Pharmacy.
(f) If the Nitrous Oxide is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, or distributed specifically for the purpose of Research and Development. (g) Any other circumstances exempted under law.

8.11.150 Public Nuisance.

Any violation of this Chapter is hereby declared a public nuisance, subject to all applicable civil, administrative, and criminal remedies and penalties according to the provisions and procedures contained in the Municipal Code and state law, including, but not limited to, an

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1916
action for abatement or injunctive relief. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive.

8.11.160 Enforcement.
(a) Any Person violating, or causing the violation, of any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Every day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. (b) A violation of this Chapter is grounds for revocation of a Tobacco Retailer Permit, in accordance with Section 8.07.290 of Chapter 8.07 of the Municipal Code. (c) A violation of this Chapter is grounds for suspension or revocation of a license or permit to operate under Title 5 (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations) of the Municipal Code, if applicable.
(d) This Chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the applicable civil or administrative remedies available under law. All available enforcement procedures and remedies remain applicable including, but not limited to, administrative fines set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the Municipal Code or other applicable law.

8.k
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1917

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Receive a Report on the Results of the September 2025 Community Survey Related to Funding for City Facilities and Services and Provide Feedback.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City Council Infrastructure Financing Subcommittee (Councilmembers Adam Rak and Neil Layton) recommend that the City Council receive a report on the results of the September 2025 Community Survey related to funding for City facilities and services and provide feedback.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact and no additional appropriation is needed.

Funding for ballot measure polling and outreach services has been included in the Downtown Renovation Plan/Design Implementation Project #C2215.

BACKGROUND:

On April 8, 2025, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a vendor team to perform ballot measure polling and outreach services to help fund the proposed enhancements to the downtown.

The application period closed on April 15, 2025, and the City received four responses. Three of the four vendors were invited for interviews based on the thoroughness of their submittals. A selection team comprised of Mayor Sara McDowell, Council Member Neil Layton, City Manager Jeff Maltbie, Assistant City Manager Nil Blackburn, and Administrative Services Director Rebecca Mendenhall met with the three vendors.

On June 9, 2025, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with TeamCivX and True North Research.

In September 2025, TeamCivX and True North Research conducted a voter survey to collect the community’s input about issues that affect the quality of life in our community, including funding for City facilities and services. The survey began the week of September 22 and lasted for a period of ten days. During this time, True North Research conducted a stratified and clustered random sample of likely San Carlos voters via email, text, and phone to conduct the approximately 12-minute survey. Responses were completely confidential.

One of the objectives of the survey was to determine how support for a local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: bond or sales tax. To reliably estimate support for the different types of measures, a split-sample methodology was employed such that approximately half of voters were administered a survey that focused on a bond

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1918
measure and the other half were asked questions regarding a potential sales tax measure. All 699 respondents received common questions that applied to both types of measures.

ANALYSIS:

The study was designed to provide the City of San Carlos with a statistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in funding priority repairs and improvements to the City’s infrastructure systems and downtown area with a local revenue measure (bond or sales tax).

The following conclusions are based on True North’s and TeamCivX’s interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the state.

Is a revenue measure feasible for 2026?
Voters consider improving/maintaining San Carlos’ streets, infrastructure, and public facilities to be among the most important issues facing their community. How this sentiment translates into support for a local revenue measure—and the feasibility of the measure if placed on a ballot in 2026—depends on the type of measure being considered.

Voters initially exhibited solid support for a 1/2 cent sales tax to fund San Carlos city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, storm drains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area, fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion, and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response. With just the information conveyed in the 75-word ballot statement, 67% of voters indicated they would support the sales tax at the initial ballot test (17% above the requisite simple majority threshold). Although support for the sales tax waned slightly over the course of the interview in response to plausible arguments against a sales tax, it remained 15% above the threshold required for passage at the final ballot test.

The survey results were less promising with respect to the feasibility of a $60 million bond designated to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian-friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking. Although 60% of respondents initially supported a potential bond measure (the threshold required for passage of a bond is higher at two-thirds), support for the bond also declined significantly over the course of the survey in response to tax rate information and arguments against a bond measure, landing at 52% at the final ballot test.

The results of this survey indicate that a general sales tax is feasible for the November 2026 ballot provided that it focuses on voters’ priorities and is accompanied by robust voter/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication. A thorough report detailing the survey and its results has been attached. (Attachment 1)
Having stated that a sales tax measure appears feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful.

The months leading up to the November 2026 election are likely to be punctuated with significant events in the economic and political landscape. Exactly how these events unfold and how they

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1919
may shape voters’ opinions remain to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan environment), skewed voter turnout, and/or competing measures could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.

Next Steps
The next step is to develop and implement an informational communications plan to raise awareness of the City’s infrastructure and funding needs, while also introducing the proposed measure and providing the community opportunities for input. While cities and public agencies are legally prohibited from advocating for the passage of a measure, the City can educate and inform the community about the needs and plans. Outreach does not commit the Council to place a ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot. It merely allows for additional information before any commitment is made.

The communications plan would include robust public outreach and engagement process in late 2025 and early 2026, built around multiple “communication waves” featuring direct mail, digital, social media, and email content. TeamCivX also recommends significant stakeholder outreach to dovetail with these broad, paid communication efforts, to ensure that members of the community are educated while soliciting their feedback one-on-one. They will advise which local leaders, elected officials, business organizations, and community groups to engage with (and how best to engage with them).

The deadline to qualify for the November 2026 ballot is August 7, 2026. However, work will begin in the spring of 2026 to develop the final language for the revenue measure. True North will conduct a tracking survey to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the measure and help fine-tune measure components. The survey will allow us to track support over time within the community and determine if the measure is election-ready. Based on the results of the feasibility assessment, community input received during the awareness-building efforts and the results of the tracking survey, TrueNorth and TeamCivX will have the information needed to finalize the measure for the ballot.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Receive a report on the results of the September 2025 Community Survey related to funding for City facilities and services and provide feedback; or

2. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1920
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. September 2025 Survey Results

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1921

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1922

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1923
Table of Contents
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Testing Two Funding Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Changes to Improve San Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Support by Measure Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 6/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Tax Threshold for Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Annualized Bond Impact for Median Homeowner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Project & Service Ratings by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1924
Table of Contents
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1925
List of Tables
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 4 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 5 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 7 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 8 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 9 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 10 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 11 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 12 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1926
List of Figures
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in San Carlos & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Satisfaction with City Services, Homeowner on Voter File & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 Satisfaction With City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Satisfaction With City Services by Years in San Carlos, Quality of Life & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 7 Satisfaction With City Services by Age, Homeowner on Voter File & Gender . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Initial Ballot Test: Bond & Sales Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 9 Reasons for not Supporting Measure: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 10 Reasons for not Supporting Measure: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 11 Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 12 Tax Threshold of $225 per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13 Projects & Services Tier 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 14 Projects & Services Tier 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 15 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 16 Interim Ballot Test: Bond & Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 17 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 18 Final Ballot Test: Bond & Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 19 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1927
Introduction
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Known as the City of Good Living, San Carlos is a diverse and welcoming community that offers many of the amenities and experiences that come with living in the greater Bay Area, while also maintaining a charming, small town feel. Encompassing 5.6 square miles in San Mateo County, the City had an estimated population of 600 when it was incorporated in 1925 as a General Law city. It is currently home to an estimated 29,420 residents.1 As San Carlos has grown, so too have the demands placed upon its facilities, services, and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the City’s revenue streams have not kept pace with the growing demands and escalating costs, leading to shortfalls in the funding required to adequately address its various infrastructure systems—including streets and roads, storm drains, water and wastewater systems, parks, recreation facilities, libraries, as well as public safety facilities and equipment. In particular, there is a desire to revitalize the downtown area to make it a pedestrian-friendly community space, help existing businesses thrive, attract new dining and shopping opportunities for residents, and stimulate the local economy. In total, the City has an estimated $364,000,000 in capital improvements and infrastructure needs for which it does not have a funding source.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a revenue measure to fund priority repairs, upgrades, and improvements to the City’s downtown area and infrastructure systems, as well as associated city services. Additionally, should the City decide to move forward with a revenue measure, the survey can guide how best to structure the measure so it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for a revenue measure to fund needed repairs and improvements to facilities and infrastructure; • Identify the types of projects and services voters are most interested in funding, should a measure pass;
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed revenue measure to assess how information affects support for the measure; and • Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during an election cycle.

It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often somewhat fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is limited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the election cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a local revenue measure, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Questions 5 & 7), the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle—including arguments in favor (Question 12) and opposed

1. Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1City/County Population Estimates, January 2024.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1928
Introduction
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (Question 15) to the measure—and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 16 & 17).

TESTING TWO FUNDING ALTERNATIVES One of the objectives of the study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: bond or sales tax. To reliably estimate support for the different types of measure, a split-sample methodology was employed such that approximately half of voters were administered a survey that focused on a bond measure and the other half were asked questions regarding a potential sales tax measure. All 699 respondents received common questions that applied to both types of measures.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and techniques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 35. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 699 registered voters in the City of San Carlos who are likely to participate in the November 2026 election, with subsets who are also likely to participate in lower-turnout elections (e.g., June 2026). The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered between September 23 and September 28, 2025, the average interview lasted 17 minutes.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 38) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of San Carlos for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight provided by city staff and representatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here. A special thanks also to Jeremy Hauser (TeamCivX) for contributing to the design of the study.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of San Carlos. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public and private agencies with a clear understanding of the values, opinions, priorities, and concerns of their residents, voters, and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic deci9.a November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1929
Introduction
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 sions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 500 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, 93% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $42 billion in voter-approved local revenue measures.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1930
Just the Facts
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

J UST THE F ACTS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Carlos with a statistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in funding priority repairs and improvements to the City’s infrastructure systems and downtown area with a local revenue measure (bond or sales tax). Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s and TeamCivX’s interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.

Is a revenue measure
feasible for 2026?
Voters consider improving/maintaining San Carlos’ streets, infrastructure, and public facilities to be among the most important issues facing their community. How this sentiment translates into support for a local revenue measure—and the feasibility of the measure if placed on a ballot in 2026—depends on the type of measure being considered.

Voters initially exhibited solid support for a 1/2 cent sales tax to fund San Carlos city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area, fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion, and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response. With just the information conveyed in the 75-word ballot statement, 67% of voters indicated they would support the sales at the Initial Ballot Test (17% above the requisite simple majority threshold). Although support for the sales tax waned slightly over the course of the interview in response to negative arguments, it remained 15% above the threshold required for passage at the Final Ballot Test.

The survey results were less promising with respect to the feasibility of a $60 million bond to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian-friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking. Although 60% of respondents initially supported the bond, the threshold required for passage of a bond is higher (two-thirds). Support for the bond also declined significantly over the course of the survey in response to tax rate information and negative arguments, landing at 52% at the Final Ballot Test.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1931
Just the Facts
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Having stated that a sales tax measure appears feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception.

The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North and TeamCivX recommend.

Which projects and services do San Carlos voters view as priorities?A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes”2 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a general tax are not earmarked for a specific purpose(s). Thus, a general tax provides a municipality with a great deal of flexibility with respect to what is funded by the measure on a year-to-year basis.

Although the San Carlos City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are most interested in using the proceeds to keep existing parks, recreation, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained (93% strongly or somewhat favor), fix potholes and maintain city streets (90%), maintain quick responses to 911 emergencies (88%), provide fire protection and paramedic services (88%), and repair aging infrastructure including stormdrains, sidewalks, curbs, and public facilities (86%).

How might a public
information campaign
affect support for the
proposed measure?
As noted in the body of this report, individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for a measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introduction of additional information about a measure may affect voters’ opinions about the proposal.

It is clear from the survey results that some voters’ opinions about the proposed sales tax measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific projects and services that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the measure—effectively boosting support for the measure to 70% at the Interim Ballot Test.

However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition arguments, and there is a risk that voters could be swayed by divisive and hyper-partisan campaigning during the 2026 election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for a measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort, as well as an independent campaign that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits that it will bring.

2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1932
Just the Facts
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 How might changes to
the economic or political climate alter support
for the measure?
A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the reader that the proposed sales tax measure may be feasible. Even in a national environment marred by economic uncertainty, political instability, concerns about tariffs, inflation, and cost of living, and an ongoing narrative that government is the problem, a supermajority of voters in San Carlos were supportive of the proposed sales tax measure.

On the other hand, the months leading up to the November 2026 election are likely to be punctuated with significant events on the economic and political fronts. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape voters’ opinions remains to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan environment), skewed voter turnout, and/or competing measures could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1933
Quality of Life & City Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the quality of life in San Carlos, their ideas for how it can be improved, as well as their assessment of the City’s performance in providing municipal services.

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of San Carlos using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, 93% of voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in San Carlos, with 49% reporting it is excellent and 43% stating it is good. Approximately 6% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas less than 1% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in San Carlos.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Carlos? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE Figures 2 and 3 show how ratings of the quality of
life in San Carlos varied by length of residence, age
of the respondent, satisfaction with city services,
presence of a child in the household, homeownership status, and gender. The most striking pattern in the figures is the consistency in assessments of the
quality of life in San Carlos. With the exception of
those who were dissatisfied with the City’s overall
performance, the percentage who rated the quality
of life in San Carlos as excellent or good ranged
between 85% to 98%.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS & AGE
Good

43.4 Excellent

49.2 Fair

6.4 Poor

0.5 Not sure

0.2 Very poor

0.3 53.9 54.6

46.3 46.0 50.2

42.8 30.2 51.7 46.1 41.4

47.1 51.8 45.7
Excellent

60.7 46.4 35.3 46.3
Good

33.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Years in San Carlos (Q1) Age
% Respondents

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1934
Quality of Life & City Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN CARLOS The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make San Carlos a better place to live, now and in the future (Figure 4).

Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make San Carlos a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

49.8 46.9 53.9

46.3 44.2

40.8 40.8

45.0 Excellent

53.9 13.2

48.8 50.2
Good

43.1 44.3 42.2

39.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes No Yes No Male Female
Satisfaction with City Services
(Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q19) Homeowner on Voter File Gender
% Respondents

12.8 7.8

7.2 6.7

6.4 6.3

5.8 5.2

4.8 4.4

4.1 3.1

3.1 3.1

2.5 2.4

2.4 2.1

2.1 2.0

1.9 1.8

1.6 4.8

3.1 0 5 10 15
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve, maintain infrastructure
Limit growth, development
Provide affordable housing
Add, improve sidewalks, bike lanes
No changes / Everything is fine
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve public safety
Provide, improve parks, rec areas
Enforce traffic laws
Add community pool
Improve, address downtown parking issues
Cleaner city, improve landscaping
Provide more rec activities for all ages
Improve shopping, dining options
Improve public transit
Increase police presence, response, have own police dept Encourage, support small business
Improve, develop downtown area
Provide community, cultural events
Improve environmental efforts
Improve city planning, development
Put utility wires underground
Improve schools, education
Open up Laurel Street
% Respondents

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1935
Quality of Life & City Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 4 on the previous page.

Approximately one-in-five respondents were unsure (13%) or stated that there were no changes they desire—everything is fine (6%). Among specific changes desired, improving/maintaining infrastructure (8%), limiting growth and development (7%), and providing affordable housing (7%) were the most common. Other issues cited by at least 5% of voters were adding/improving sidewalks and bike lanes (6%), reducing traffic congestion (6%), and improving public safety (5%).

Given the purpose of this study, it is instructive that many respondents mentioned an issue (infrastructure, sidewalks, bike lanes, public safety, parking, etc.) that had a direct nexus to one or both of the proposed measures.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING The final question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Carlos is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 5, more than eight-in-ten voters surveyed (85%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City of San Carlos’ efforts to provide municipal services, with 40% saying they were very satisfied. Approximately 10% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion.

Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Carlos is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 5 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES Figures 6 and 7 on the next page display
how the percentage of respondents satisfied
with the City’s overall performance varied
across key subgroups. Although opinions
about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services are strongly related to the perceived quality of life in the community, all demographic subgroups expressed a high opinion of the City’s overall performance with the percentage satisfied ranging from a low of 80% to a high of 94%.

Prefer not to
answer

0.1 Not sure

4.7 Very
dissatisfied

2.2 Somewhat
dissatisfied

7.7 Somewhat
satisfied

45.8 Very satisfied

39.5 9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1936
Quality of Life & City Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FIGURE 6 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY YEARS IN SAN CARLOS, QUALITY OF LIFE & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 7 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY AGE, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER

63.8 18.5

2.3 0.0

38.8 41.3

29.8 66.1

31.6 26.0

50.3 43.4
Very
satisfied

58.2 36.8 41.8 35.9
Smwt
satisfied

32.1 47.8

47.9 48.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Excellent Good Fair Poor / very poor
Yes No
Years in San Carlos (Q1) Quality of Life (Q2) Child in Hsld (Q19) % Respondents

36.8 38.8 41.9 42.6 38.1

42.7 46.3 44.2 47.3

44.5 32.7

41.1 54.7 Very
satisfied

46.5 32.5 52.7

51.4 Smwt
satisfied

42.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Male Female Age Homeowner on Voter File Gender
% Respondents

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1937
Initial Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
As noted in the Introduction, the primary objective of this study was to estimate voter support for two potential ballot measures—a $60 million bond to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian-friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking, and a half-cent general sales tax to fund San Carlos city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area, fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion, and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response. To this end, questions 5 (bond) and 7 (sales tax) were designed to take an early assessment of support for the respective measures. A split sample approach was employed to randomly assign respondents to one version of the measure. Once selected for a particular version (e.g., sales tax), the respondent continued with that version for the remainder of the interview.

The motivation for placing questions 5 and 7 up-front in the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure.

At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective education campaign. Questions 5 and 7, also known as the Initial Ballot Tests, are thus a good gauge of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today, on the natural. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides an estimate of ‘natural’ support for a measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.

SUPPORT BY MEASURE TYPE Figure 8 on the next page presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test for the two versions of the measure. Overall, 60% of likely November 2026 voters indicated they would support the proposed $60 million bond, with 30% opposed and 10% either unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. Support for the bond was approximately seven points below the two-thirds supermajority (66.7%) required for passage.

A substantially higher percentage of respondents (67%) indicated they would support the onehalf cent sales tax measure, whereas 26% were opposed and 7% were unsure or unwilling to support the sales tax. For general taxes in California, the level of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test for the sales tax was approximately 17 percentage points above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Question 5 Next year, voters in San Carlos may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. In order to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian- friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking; shall City of San Carlos' measure be adopted authorizing 60 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $20 per $100,000 assessed value (4 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1938
Initial Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 independent audits and all money locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 7 Next year, voters in San Carlos may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. To provide funding for San Carlos city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area; fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion; and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response; shall City of San Carlos' ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 14 years, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND & SALES TAX
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Tables 1 and 2 on the following pages show how support at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits for each funding mechanism. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2026 voter universe that each subgroup category comprises. As shown in the tables, support varied considerably across voter subgroups for both the proposed bond and sales tax measures, with the largest differences in support occurring by perceived quality of life in San Carlos, satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing municipal services, individual partisanship, and household party type for both measures. Age was also strongly associated with support for the bond measure, but less so for the sales tax measure.

Considering the different thresholds required for passage for each funding mechanism, initial support for the proposed sales tax was widespread, exceeding a majority in all but a few identified subgroups (see Table 2).

10.0 13.9 16.2

9.7 6.1

28.2 26.2

40.7 31.4

16.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Bond Sales Tax
Initial Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1939
Initial Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 59.6 9.7
Less than 5 13 72.2 7.0
5 to 9 12 74.8 9.2
10 to 14 12 63.4 8.9
15 or more 63 53.8 10.6
Excellent 49 69.6 7.4
Good 44 53.1 13.4
Fair 6 42.6 4.1
Poor / very poor 1 16.3 0.0
Satisfied 90 63.0 9.2
Dissatisfied 10 34.2 2.7
1+x per wk 72 59.6 7.0
2-3x per mo 20 60.6 16.6
1x per mo or less 8 55.9 11.3
Yes 33 63.8 7.0
No 67 58.8 10.5
Since June 2016 23 72.8 12.4
Before June 2016 77 56.1 9.0
18 to 29 11 78.8 19.4
30 to 39 12 88.2 6.2
40 to 49 17 57.9 7.3
50 to 64 32 58.0 6.0
65 or older 28 45.8 12.2
Yes 78 56.2 8.4
No 22 69.4 13.5
Yes 96 61.2 10.2
No 4 28.5 0.0
Single dem 26 61.1 11.2
Dual dem 21 69.9 10.5
Single, Dual rep 9 24.7 10.0
Other 16 59.7 6.3
Mixed 27 63.1 9.8
Yes 74 58.2 9.1
No 26 63.7 11.5
Yes 56 52.6 10.1
No 44 68.9 9.2
Democrat 59 67.2 10.0
Republican 16 28.7 11.4
Other / DTS 26 60.2 8.2
Male 51 65.0 6.8
Female 49 55.6 13.2
Party
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Gender
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Household Party Type
Age
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Frequency of Visits to
Downtown (Q18)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1940
Initial Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who did not support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test or were unsure were asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Questions 6 (bond) and 8 (sales tax) were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 9 for the bond measure and Figure 10 for the sales tax.

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 66.9 6.1
Less than 5 13 70.9 9.2
5 to 9 12 65.5 1.4
10 to 14 12 63.5 13.5
15 or more 63 67.0 5.0
Excellent 49 79.4 6.0
Good 44 56.0 6.6
Fair 6 34.3 3.9
Poor / very poor 1 54.7 0.0
Satisfied 90 70.0 6.2
Dissatisfied 10 35.4 5.9
1+x per wk 72 69.9 5.6
2-3x per mo 20 63.3 11.9
1x per mo or less 8 49.7 0.0
Yes 33 68.5 5.4
No 67 67.9 6.8
Since June 2016 23 67.7 2.6
Before June 2016 77 66.7 7.2
18 to 29 11 71.5 2.7
30 to 39 12 68.4 7.6
40 to 49 17 73.0 3.5
50 to 64 32 64.4 9.4
65 or older 28 64.1 3.7
Yes 78 65.4 6.0
No 22 73.3 6.2
Yes 96 66.5 6.3
No 4 76.3 0.0
Single dem 26 71.6 4.4
Dual dem 21 79.7 5.2
Single, Dual rep 9 36.4 19.5
Other 16 71.4 6.4
Mixed 27 60.5 4.1
Yes 74 65.0 6.3
No 26 72.3 5.4
Yes 56 68.7 5.7
No 44 64.6 6.6
Democrat 59 74.5 4.1
Republican 16 36.8 10.4
Other / DTS 26 69.0 7.9
Male 51 67.1 5.0
Female 49 69.2 7.0
Party
Gender
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Registration Year
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Frequency of Visits to
Downtown (Q18)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1941
Initial Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Although the rank order (and intensity of ratings) varied by type of funding mechanism, concern about taxes being too high was the most common reason offered for not supporting both measures. Those who did not support the bond were also likely to state there were other higher priorities in the community, they needed more information, or offered that the City’s infrastructure is OK as is as reasons for their position. Meanwhile, those who did not support the sales tax expressed concern about money being mismanaged/misspent, indicated there were other higher priorities in the community, or needed additional information.

Question 6/8 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described?
FIGURE 9 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE: BOND

20.2 19.2

12.5 12.4

11.6 9.0

6.7 6.0

4.1 1.9

1.8 0.8

0.5 1.5

3.3 0 5 10 15 20 25
Taxes already too high
Other higher priorities in community
Need more information
City infrastructure okay as-is, no need for more money
Not sure / No particular reason
Measure too expensive
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Cost of living already too high, inflation
City needs more transparency, show where money is
spent
Other ways to be funded
Do not support bonds, increased debt
City already has enough money in budget
Do not trust City, Council
Concern about specifics of project list
Mentioned past ballot measure
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure: Bond

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1942
Initial Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FIGURE 10 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE: SALES TAX

38.9 31.7

11.3 10.4

9.0 8.1

6.2 5.8

5.2 3.3

0.7 0.6

0.5 0.7

4.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Taxes already too high
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Other higher priorities in community
Need more information
Not sure / No particular reason
Other ways to be funded
City already has enough money in budget
Cost of living already too high, inflation
City needs more transparency, show where money is
spent
City infrastructure okay as-is, no need for more money
Support current sales tax rate but not an increase
Measure too expensive
General government use too broad, blank check
Money will go to staff, admin, pensions
Do not trust City, Council
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure: Sales Tax

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1943
Tax Threshold for Bond
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

T AX T HRESHOLD FOR B OND
Naturally, voter support for a revenue measure is often contingent on the cost of the measure.

The higher the tax rate, all other things being equal, the less likely a voter is to support the measure. One of the goals of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the tax rate for the bond can be expected to have on voter support for the proposed measure.3 Questions 9 and 10 were designed to do just that. Respondents were first instructed that the amount each homeowner will pay if the measure passes depends on the assessed value of their home—not the market value. Voters were then presented with the highest tax rate ($20 per $100,000 assessed valuation) and asked if they would support the proposed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked whether they would support the measure at the lower tax rate. The three tax rates tested using this methodology and the percentage of respondents who indicated they would vote in favor of the measure at each rate are shown in Figure 11.

Question 9 The amount home owners will pay if the bond passes depends on the assessed value of their home - not the current market value of the home. If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure?
FIGURE 11 TAX THRESHOLD
The most obvious pattern revealed in Figure 11 is that some voters are price sensitive when it comes to their support for the proposed bond measure. As the cost of the measure to their household increases, support for the bond decreases. At the highest tax rate tested ($20 per $100,000 of assessed valuation), 48% of voters indicated that they would support the bond.

Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea3. Because voters are generally not sensitive to small fluctuations in the sales tax rate, the survey did not test alternative rates for the sales tax.

27.1 26.7

26.5 16.9

15.9 12.3

21.6 19.1

36.3 14.3 10.5

24.7 20.8

13.6 13.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
$20 per $100K
$14 per $100K
$7 per $100K
% Respondents: Bond
Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure 48%
51%
38%
35%
63% 27%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1944
Tax Threshold for Bond
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 sure, with 63% of voters indicating that they would support the bond at the lowest tax rate tested ($7 per $100,000 of assessed valuation).

ANNUALIZED BOND IMPACT FOR MEDIAN HOMEOWNER Because voters occasionally overestimate their current assessed valuation and/or have difficulty translating the tax rate into an annualized total, the survey also tested a different approach for conveying the tax rate information for the bond. In addition to presenting the rate as described above, voters were also provided with the total annual cost of the bond for the median homeowner (see Question 10) based on the $20 per $100,000 assessed valuation tax rate tested in Question 9. The results are presented in Figure 12 below.

Voters responded more positively when the cost of the bond measure was expressed as an annual total for the median homeowner when compared with a rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation. At a tax rate of $20 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, 48% of voters indicated that they would support the proposed bond measure. When that rate was translated to an annual cost for the median homeowner (approximately $225 per year), 54% of those surveyed indicated that they would support the bond, 35% would oppose it, and 12% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.

Question 10 Let me put it another way: If you knew that this measure would cost the typical home owner about $225 per year, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure? FIGURE 12 TAX THRESHOLD OF $225 PER YEAR
Definitely yes

24.7 Probably yes

28.9 Probably no

14.4 Definitely no

20.4 Not sure

10.2 Prefer not to
answer

1.5 9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1945
Projects & Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 5 (bond) and Question 7 (sales tax) indicated that the proposed bond measure would be used to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian-friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking, and that the proposed sales tax measure would be used to fund city services such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area, fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion, and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response. The purpose of Question 11 was to provide respondents with the full range of projects and services that may be funded by the proposed revenue measures, and to identify which of these items voters most favored funding with the measure proceeds.

Question 11 The measure we've been discussing would provide funding for a variety of city projects and services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 13 PROJECTS & SERVICES TIER 1
After reading each item that may be funded by the measure, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assuming that the measure passes. Descriptions of the projects and services tested, as well as voters’ responses, are shown in Figure 13 (Top Tier) and Figure 14 (Second Tier).4 Items that were unique to the sales tax measure are preceeded by [Sales Tax] in the label.

64.1 59.7

64.9 59.1

52.3 52.4

48.4 46.4

33.1 32.2

29.3 30.2

23.1 28.4

33.2 29.3

33.0 33.5

42.6 42.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
[Sales Tax] Keep existing parks, recreation, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
[Sales Tax] Fix potholes and maintain city streets
[Sales Tax] Maintain quick responses to 911 emergencies [Sales Tax] Provide fire protection and paramedic services [Sales Tax] Repair aging infrastructure including stormdrains, sidewalks, curbs, and public facilities
[Sales Tax] Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion [Sales Tax] Be better prepared for emergencies and natural disasters including wildfires, floods, and sea-level rise [Sales Tax] Provide law enforcement services, including crime prevention and investigations
Improve street trees and landscaping
Improve infrastructure, utilities, and lighting downtown Q11r Q11l Q11p Q11o Q11n Q11m Q11s Q11q Q11d Q11e
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1946
Projects & Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Overall, respondents expressed greater interest in projects and services that could be funded by a general sales tax measure when compared to the specific improvements downtown that could be funded by a bond. The items that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents were keeping existing parks, recreation, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained (93% strongly or somewhat favor), fixing potholes and maintaining city streets (90%), maintaining quick responses to 911 emergencies (88%), providing fire protection and paramedic services (88%), and repairing aging infrastructure including stormdrains, sidewalks, curbs, and public facilities (86%).

FIGURE 14 PROJECTS & SERVICES TIER 2
PROJECT & SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page presents the top five services (based on the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test. Not surprisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure were generally less likely to favor spending money on a given project when compared with supporters. Nevertheless, initial supporters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on two of the top five priorities for funding.

4. For the full text of the services tested, turn to Question 11 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 38.

44.9 32.5

30.4 31.1

29.2 28.4

26.3 15.2

14.5 28.2

37.6 39.4

34.9 36.3

34.4 33.7

33.8 30.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Make downtown San Carlos pedestrian-friendly with
redesigned streets, wider sidewalks, connected public plazas Provide spaces downtown for community events, activities, and festivals
Improve parking downtown
Provide safe, protected bicycle lanes
Provide additional outdoor public seating and dining areas downtown
Provide public restrooms downtown
Improve public transit access to downtown
Install public art downtown
Provide EV charging stations downtown
Q11a Q11c Q11f Q11k Q11b Q11g Q11i Q11h Q11j
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1947
Projects & Services
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TABLE 3 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5,Q7) Item Project/Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q11r [Sales Tax] Keep existing parks, recreation, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained 75
Q11p [Sales Tax] Maintain quick responses to 911 emergencies 72 Q11o [Sales Tax] Provide fire protection and paramedic services 68 Q11m [Sales Tax] Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion 67
Q11l [Sales Tax] Fix potholes and maintain city streets 64 Q11p [Sales Tax] Maintain quick responses to 911 emergencies 53 Q11l [Sales Tax] Fix potholes and maintain city streets 51 Q11r [Sales Tax] Keep existing parks, recreation, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained 43
Q11q [Sales Tax] Provide law enforcement services, including crime prevention and investigations 43
Q11o [Sales Tax] Provide fire protection and paramedic services 41 Q11l [Sales Tax] Fix potholes and maintain city streets 52 Q11s [Sales Tax] Be better prepared for emergencies and natural disasters including wildfires, floods, and sea-level rise 47
Q11n [Sales Tax] Repair aging infrastructure including stormdrains, sidewalks, curbs, and public facilities 44
Q11q [Sales Tax] Provide law enforcement services, including crime prevention and investigations 44
Q11p [Sales Tax] Maintain quick responses to 911 emergencies 43 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 442)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 198)
Not Sure
(n = 55)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1948
Positive Arguments
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
If the City chooses to place a measure on an upcoming ballot, voters will be exposed to various arguments about the proposal in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support the measure, just as opponents may present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for a revenue measure, it is important that the survey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this information ultimately shapes voters’ opinions about the measure.

The objective of Question 12 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 28). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias. Arguments that were presented only to those who received the sales tax measure are preceded by [Sales Tax] in the label.

Question 12 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people say about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 15 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

28.7 28.2

38.2 28.7

30.7 23.5

24.1 24.1

29.8 20.0

46.9 46.1

35.6 40.0

37.3 43.9

41.4 40.6

33.7 36.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
[Sales Tax] By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, this measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Carlos a special place to live
[Sales Tax] City maintains 87 mi of streets,105 mi of sewer pipes,13 parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in San Carlos.

By law, it can’t be taken away by the State or County
Measure will create a vibrant downtown San Carlos by helping existing businesses thrive, attracting new dining, shopping opportunities for residents, stimulating local economy
[Sales Tax] Most sales tax goes to State, County; measure ensures that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in San Carlos, we have local control over how those funds are spent
All improvements to downtown will follow Downtown Specific Plan, created with extensive input from residents, property, biz owners to meet needs of community now, into future
Measure includes a clear system of accountability including independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent Measure will make downtown San Carlos easier to visit through improvements to parking, transit, bikeways, accessibility for people with disabilities
City of San Carlos has $364M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
[Sales Tax] Sizeable percentage of sales tax will come from people who visit, pass through San Carlos, don’t live here; measure will ensure they pay fair share for facilities, services they use Q12g Q12j Q12a Q12c Q12i Q12f Q12b Q12e Q12d Q12h
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1949
Positive Arguments
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 15 on the prior page presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are sorted from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this methodology, the most compelling positive arguments were: By keeping our city safe, clean, and well-maintained, this measure will help protect our quality of life and keep San Carlos a special place to live (76% very or somewhat convincing), The City maintains 87 miles of streets, 105 miles of sewer pipes, and 13 parks and playfields. This measure provides the funding we need to keep our streets, infrastructure, and parks in good condition (74%), and All money raised by the measure will be reinvested here in San Carlos. By law, it can't be taken away by the State or County (74%).

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 4 on the next page lists the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The most striking pattern in the table is that the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially inclined to support the measure when compared to voters who initially opposed the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, two arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1950
Positive Arguments
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 TABLE 4 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5,Q7) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q12a All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in San Carlos. By law, it can’t be taken away by the State or County 52
Q12c
Measure will create a vibrant downtown San Carlos by helping existing businesses thrive, attracting new dining, shopping opportunities for residents, stimulating local economy
43 Q12d
City of San Carlos has $364M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
42 Q12i
[Sales Tax] Most sales tax goes to State, County; measure ensures that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in San Carlos, we have local control over how those funds are spent
41 Q12j
[Sales Tax] City maintains 87 mi of streets,105 mi of sewer pipes,13 parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
38 Q12a All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in San Carlos. By law, it can’t be taken away by the State or County 12
Q12i
[Sales Tax] Most sales tax goes to State, County; measure ensures that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in San Carlos, we have local control over how those funds are spent
9 Q12g [Sales Tax] By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, this measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Carlos a special place to live 7 Q12d
City of San Carlos has $364M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
6 Q12e Measure will make downtown San Carlos easier to visit through improvements to parking, transit, bikeways, accessibility for people with disabilities 6 Q12g [Sales Tax] By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, this measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Carlos a special place to live 30 Q12a All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in San Carlos. By law, it can’t be taken away by the State or County 27
Q12d
City of San Carlos has $364M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
24 Q12j
[Sales Tax] City maintains 87 mi of streets,105 mi of sewer pipes,13 parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
19 Q12b Measure includes a clear system of accountability including independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 18
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 442)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 198)
Not Sure
(n = 55)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1951
Interim Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
After informing respondents about the potential tax rates associated with the measure (bond only), projects and services that could be funded, as well as exposing them to positive arguments they may encounter during the election cycle, the survey again presented voters with the ballot language used previously to gauge how their support for the measures may have changed.

Question 13 Sometimes people change their minds about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. In order to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian- friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking; shall City of San Carlos' measure be adopted authorizing 60 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $20 per $100,000 assessed value (4 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 14 Sometimes people change their minds about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. To provide funding for San Carlos city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area; fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion; and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response; shall City of San Carlos' ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 14 years, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 16 INTERIM BALLOT TEST: BOND & SALES TAX
Overall support for the bond
among likely November 2026
voters decreased to 54%, with
37% opposed and the remainder unsure or unwilling to
share their opinion. Meanwhile,
support for the sales tax measure increased to 70% at the Interim Ballot Test. Twenty-five
percent (25%) of respondents
opposed the sales tax measure
at this point, whereas approximately 5% remained unwilling to share their opinion.

11.7 17.5

13.2 9.0 4.7

24.6 30.9

29.2 38.9

19.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Bond Sales Tax
Interim Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1952
Interim Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Tables 5 and 6 display how support for each measure at this point in the survey varied by key demographic subgroups, as well as the percentage change in subgroup support when compared to the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. Support for the bond measure declined between the Initial and Interim Ballot Tests for most subgroups, whereas support for the sales tax measure increased for most subgroups.

TABLE 5 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: BOND Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Overall 100.0 53.8 -5.8
Less than 5 13 41.9 -30.3
5 to 9 12 81.7 +6.9
10 to 14 12 60.9 -2.5
15 or more 63 50.1 -3.7
Excellent 49 61.1 -8.5
Good 44 52.0 -1.1
Fair 6 26.5 -16.1
Poor / very poor 1 0.0 -16.3
Satisfied 90 57.3 -5.6
Dissatisfied 10 18.9 -15.3
1+x per wk 72 56.6 -3.1
2-3x per mo 20 47.8 -12.8
1x per mo or less 8 45.7 -10.2
Yes 33 58.3 -5.5
No 67 53.1 -5.7
Since June 2016 23 59.3 -13.5
Before June 2016 77 52.3 -3.7
18 to 29 11 63.8 -15.0
30 to 39 12 73.2 -15.1
40 to 49 17 60.2 +2.3
50 to 64 32 52.6 -5.4
65 or older 28 40.8 -5.0
Yes 78 48.1 -8.1
No 22 70.2 +0.8
Yes 96 55.1 -6.1
No 4 28.5 No change
Single dem 26 60.3 -0.8
Dual dem 21 65.8 -4.1
Single, Dual rep 9 18.9 -5.7
Other 16 46.6 -13.1
Mixed 27 55.6 -7.5
Yes 74 54.8 -3.4
No 26 51.0 -12.8
Yes 56 49.0 -3.6
No 44 60.2 -8.7
Democrat 59 65.0 -2.2
Republican 16 18.1 -10.6
Other / DTS 26 48.9 -11.3
Male 51 61.7 -3.3
Female 49 47.1 -8.5
Party
Gender
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Registration Year
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Frequency of Visits to
Downtown (Q18)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1953
Interim Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q7)
Overall 100.0 69.9 +3.0
Less than 5 13 78.0 +7.1
5 to 9 12 66.4 +0.8
10 to 14 12 64.0 +0.5
15 or more 63 70.0 +3.0
Excellent 49 84.4 +5.0
Good 44 57.6 +1.6
Fair 6 30.2 -4.1
Poor / very poor 1 45.3 -9.3
Satisfied 90 73.2 +3.2
Dissatisfied 10 39.1 +3.7
1+x per wk 72 73.0 +3.1
2-3x per mo 20 67.6 +4.3
1x per mo or less 8 49.7 No change
Yes 33 71.2 +2.7
No 67 71.2 +3.2
Since June 2016 23 69.7 +2.0
Before June 2016 77 69.9 +3.2
18 to 29 11 72.2 +0.7
30 to 39 12 75.0 +6.6
40 to 49 17 75.3 +2.3
50 to 64 32 66.2 +1.8
65 or older 28 67.8 +3.7
Yes 78 66.9 +1.5
No 22 82.5 +9.2
Yes 96 69.6 +3.1
No 4 76.3 No change
Single dem 26 70.6 -1.0
Dual dem 21 82.8 +3.1
Single, Dual rep 9 56.2 +19.8
Other 16 74.4 +3.0
Mixed 27 61.6 +1.1
Yes 74 68.2 +3.2
No 26 74.5 +2.2
Yes 56 69.2 +0.5
No 44 70.6 +6.0
Democrat 59 75.0 +0.5
Republican 16 49.4 +12.6
Other / DTS 26 71.3 +2.3
Male 51 68.4 +1.3
Female 49 74.0 +4.7
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Party
Gender
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Frequency of Visits to
Downtown (Q18)
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Registration Year
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1954
Negative Arguments
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 12 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measures, Question 15 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measures. In the case of Question 15, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure.

The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented below in Figure 17.

Question 15 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure say. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? FIGURE 17 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Among the negative arguments tested, the most compelling were: Residents and local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, and cost of living increases. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes (71% very or somewhat convincing), Everyone is coming after us for tax increases - including state and county taxes, school bonds, and other taxes that will be on the ballot next year. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (68%), and Our community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax increase will make it even less affordable (66%).

35.2 33.5

30.1 28.8

27.5 26.2

22.1 15.7

35.8 34.4

35.5 35.9

34.9 31.4

35.3 32.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not time to raise taxes Everyone is coming after us for tax increases incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable
[Bond] City has more pressing needs than redesigning a few blocks downtown; we should spend money on more
important priorities like public safety, affordable housing, fixing streets
[Sales Tax] There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
Reconstructing downtown will involve 10 yrs of noisy
construction, dust, extra traffic congestion
[Bond] Don’t be fooled; with interest, bond will cost taxpayers about $120M, take 30 yrs to pay off
Redeveloping downtown will change fabric of small town by attracting more visitors, more development, more traffic Q15a1 Q15c Q15a2 Q15e Q15f Q15b1 Q15d Q15b2
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1955
Negative Arguments
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 7 ranks the top five negative arguments (based on the percentage of respondents who cited each as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test.

TABLE 7 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5,Q7) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q15f
[Sales Tax] There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
20 Q15c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
20 Q15a1 Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not time to raise taxes 20 Q15a2 Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable 18 Q15e
[Bond] City has more pressing needs than redesigning a few blocks downtown; we should spend money on more important priorities like public safety, affordable housing, fixing streets
16 Q15c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
68 Q15a1 Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not time to raise taxes 67 Q15a2 Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable 59 Q15e
[Bond] City has more pressing needs than redesigning a few blocks downtown; we should spend money on more important priorities like public safety, affordable housing, fixing streets
53 Q15f
[Sales Tax] There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
50 Q15b1 Reconstructing downtown will involve 10 yrs of noisy construction, dust, extra traffic congestion 38
Q15a2 Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable 36 Q15e
[Bond] City has more pressing needs than redesigning a few blocks downtown; we should spend money on more important priorities like public safety, affordable housing, fixing streets
32 Q15a1 Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not time to raise taxes 29 Q15d [Bond] Don’t be fooled; with interest, bond will cost taxpayers about $120M, take 30 yrs to pay off 25
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 442)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 198)
Not Sure
(n = 55)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1956
Final Ballot Test
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. An important goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measures may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measures, possible tax rates (bond only), projects and improvements that could be funded by the measures, as well as arguments in favor and against the proposals, respondents were again asked whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed revenue measures.

Question 16 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time. In order to revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian- friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking; shall City of San Carlos' measure be adopted authorizing 60 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $20 per $100,000 assessed value (4 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 17 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time. To provide funding for San Carlos city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area; fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion; and supporting fire protection, police, and 911 emergency response; shall City of San Carlos' ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 14 years, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 18 FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND & SALES TAX
As shown in Figure 18, support
for the bond measure continued to lag behind the sales tax option, declining to 52% at the
Final Ballot Test. Although the
negative arguments also
impacted support for the sales
tax, support at the Final Ballot
Test remained well above the
simple majority required for
passage at 65%, with 29%
opposed and 7% unsure or
unwilling to share their opinion.

14.0 18.2

14.5 9.1 6.2

27.5 23.5

37.2 28.2

21.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Bond Sales Tax
Final Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1957
Change in Support
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 8 (bond) and Table 9 (sales tax) provide a closer look at how support for the measures changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within various subgroups of voters. The percentage of support for each measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading% Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, negative differences in red.

TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND As expected, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their support for the measures when compared with levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test. The general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test), was also one of Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q13)
Overall 100.0 51.7 -7.9 -2.1
Less than 5 13 41.9 -30.3 +0.0
5 to 9 12 78.3 +3.6 -3.4
10 to 14 12 58.7 -4.7 -2.2
15 or more 63 47.8 -6.0 -2.3
Excellent 49 57.6 -12.0 -3.5
Good 44 51.6 -1.6 -0.5
Fair 6 22.7 -19.9 -3.8
Poor / very poor 1 0.0 -16.3 No change
Satisfied 90 55.2 -7.7 -2.1
Dissatisfied 10 21.4 -12.8 +2.5
1+x per wk 72 52.7 -6.9 -3.8
2-3x per mo 20 46.5 -14.2 -1.3
1x per mo or less 8 57.0 +1.1 +11.3
Yes 33 54.6 -9.3 -3.8
No 67 51.3 -7.5 -1.8
Since June 2016 23 60.5 -12.4 +1.2
Before June 2016 77 49.3 -6.7 -3.0
18 to 29 11 66.7 -12.1 +2.9
30 to 39 12 70.0 -18.2 -3.2
40 to 49 17 56.3 -1.6 -3.9
50 to 64 32 48.5 -9.6 -4.1
65 or older 28 40.2 -5.6 -0.6
Yes 78 45.1 -11.2 -3.0
No 22 70.7 +1.3 +0.5
Yes 96 53.5 -7.7 -1.6
No 4 15.6 -12.9 -12.9
Single dem 26 56.0 -5.0 -4.2
Dual dem 21 63.1 -6.8 -2.7
Single, Dual rep 9 17.1 -7.5 -1.8
Other 16 46.4 -13.3 -0.2
Mixed 27 54.8 -8.3 -0.8
Yes 74 51.1 -7.1 -3.8
No 26 53.5 -10.2 +2.6
Yes 56 46.1 -6.6 -3.0
No 44 59.2 -9.7 -1.0
Democrat 59 62.5 -4.6 -2.5
Republican 16 16.0 -12.8 -2.1
Other / DTS 26 47.6 -12.6 -1.3
Male 51 61.2 -3.8 -0.5
Female 49 42.3 -13.3 -4.7
Party
Gender
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Registration Year
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Frequency of Visits to
Downtown (Q18)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1958
Change in Support
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 decreasing support for most voter subgroups, averaging -8% overall for the bond and -2% for the sales tax. Even with this trend, however, support for the proposed sales tax measure at the Final Ballot Test (65%) remained 15% above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage of a general tax.

TABLE 9 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX Whereas tables 8 and 9 display changes in support for the measures over the course of the interview at the subgroup level, tables 10 and 11 display the individual-level changes that occurred between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the respective measures. On the left side of the tables is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the tables depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row of Table 10 we see that of the Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q7)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q14)
Overall 100.0 64.7 -2.2 -5.1
Less than 5 13 78.0 +7.1 No change
5 to 9 12 59.3 -6.2 -7.1
10 to 14 12 59.1 -4.4 -4.9
15 or more 63 64.2 -2.8 -5.8
Excellent 49 78.3 -1.1 -6.1
Good 44 53.6 -2.4 -4.0
Fair 6 25.0 -9.3 -5.2
Poor / very poor 1 45.3 -9.3 No change
Satisfied 90 68.3 -1.7 -4.9
Dissatisfied 10 37.5 +2.1 -1.6
1+x per wk 72 70.1 +0.2 -2.8
2-3x per mo 20 63.2 -0.1 -4.4
1x per mo or less 8 24.5 -25.1 -25.1
Yes 33 68.4 -0.1 -2.8
No 67 65.0 -2.9 -6.2
Since June 2016 23 62.2 -5.5 -7.5
Before June 2016 77 65.5 -1.1 -4.4
18 to 29 11 55.1 -16.4 -17.1
30 to 39 12 75.0 +6.6 No change
40 to 49 17 67.1 -5.9 -8.2
50 to 64 32 62.7 -1.7 -3.5
65 or older 28 64.3 +0.2 -3.6
Yes 78 62.3 -3.1 -4.6
No 22 75.3 +2.0 -7.2
Yes 96 64.3 -2.3 -5.3
No 4 76.3 +0.0 +0.0
Single dem 26 68.9 -2.7 -1.7
Dual dem 21 75.1 -4.6 -7.7
Single, Dual rep 9 49.6 +13.1 -6.7
Other 16 66.0 -5.4 -8.5
Mixed 27 57.6 -2.8 -3.9
Yes 74 65.3 +0.3 -2.9
No 26 63.2 -9.1 -11.3
Yes 56 66.6 -2.2 -2.7
No 44 62.5 -2.2 -8.2
Democrat 59 71.7 -2.8 -3.3
Republican 16 45.8 +9.1 -3.6
Other / DTS 26 61.0 -8.0 -10.3
Male 51 64.8 -2.3 -3.6
Female 49 67.1 -2.2 -6.9
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Party
Gender
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Frequency of Visits to
Downtown (Q18)
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Registration Year
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1959
Change in Support
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

28.2% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 19% also indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 7.5% moved to the probably support group, 0.4% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.7% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 0.6% percent stated they were now unsure of their vote choice.

To ease interpretation of the tables, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no movement. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.

TABLE 10 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND TABLE 11 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 28.2% 19.0% 7.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.6%
Probably support 31.4% 3.8% 17.3% 5.6% 0.6% 4.1%
Probably oppose 16.5% 0.0% 1.3% 10.2% 4.5% 0.4%
Definitely oppose 13.9% 0.0% 0.1% 1.7% 12.0% 0.0%
Not sure 10.0% 0.7% 2.0% 3.1% 0.3% 4.0%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q16)
Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 26.2% 20.0% 5.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.4%
Probably support 40.7% 7.3% 27.6% 3.4% 0.2% 2.2%
Probably oppose 10.0% 0.0% 1.1% 5.9% 2.5% 0.5%
Definitely oppose 16.2% 0.0% 0.9% 3.7% 11.4% 0.3%
Not sure 6.9% 0.3% 2.5% 0.3% 0.5% 3.3%
Initial Ballot Test (Q7)
Final Ballot Test (Q17)

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1960
Background & Demographics
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 12 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE In addition to questions directly related to
the proposed revenue measures, the study
collected basic demographic information
about respondents and their households.

Some of this information was gathered during the interview, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of
the likely November 2026 voter sample
used for this study is shown in Table 12.

Total Respondents 699
Years in San Carlos (Q1)
Less than 5 13.0
5 to 9 12.1
10 to 14 11.6
15 or more 63.1
Prefer not to answer 0.2
Frequency of Visits to Downtown (Q18)
1+x per wk 71.3
2-3x per mo 19.7
1x per mo or less 8.2
Not sure / Prefer not to answer 0.8
Child in Hsld (Q19)
Yes 32.4
No 64.8
Prefer not to answer 2.7
Gender
Male 49.7
Female 47.2
Non-binary 0.3
Prefer not to answer 2.8
Party
Democrat 58.6
Republican 15.6
Other / DTS 25.8
A
ge
18 to 29 11.1
30 to 39 12.2
40 to 49 17.1
50 to 64 31.6
65 or older 28.1
Re
gistration Year
Since June 2016 22.5
Before June 2016 77.5
Household Party Type
Sin
gle dem 26.3
Dual dem 21.2
Sin
gle, Dual rep 9.1
Other 16.4
Mixed 27.0
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 77.7
No 22.3
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 95.6
No 4.4
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Yes 73.8
No 26.2
Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
Yes 56.3
No 43.7

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1961
Methodology
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of San Carlos and TeamCivX to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only individuals who did not support the bond measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked Question 6 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. A split-sample approach was also used throughout the survey so that respondents received questions related to one version of the measure (bond or sales tax) based on their being assigned to Sample A or Sample B. In some cases, two versions of a project or argument were tested to identify how wording or framing differences impact perception of the item. In such cases, half of each sample (within Sample A or B) received the item with version 1 wording (e.g., Question 15, item A1) and the other half received version 2 (e.g., Question 15, item A2). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 38) identifies the skip instructions that were used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled voters. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter households in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sample of registered voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general election, with subsets who are also likely to participate in lower-turnout elections (e.g., June 2026). Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a combination of age, gender, and household party type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.

To reliably estimate support for a bond measure as well as a sales tax measure, a split-sample methodology was employed such that 350 voters were administered a survey that focused on a bond, whereas a separate 349 voters were asked questions regarding a sales tax measure. All respondents received questions that were common to both types of measures. The split-sample

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1962
Methodology
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 approach was employed because it is the most reliable method of estimating voter support for alternative tax measures. Prior research (and actual election results) have consistently shown that attempting to estimate support for multiple tax measures (e.g., bond and sales tax) with the same respondent during the course of an interview will lead to an artificially low estimate of support for whichever measure is introduced second—and it also has a tendency to cause confusion.

To avoid these sources of measurement error, it is important that each respondent be asked their opinions regarding one of the alternatives, not both.

STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sample was representative of voters in the county who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general election. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in said election.

Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 16,950 likely November 2026 voters identified in the city had been surveyed for the study.

Figure 19 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For questions answered by all 699 respondents, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.6%. For questions specific to one type of revenue measure (bond or sales tax), the maximum margin of error is approximately ± 5.2%.

FIGURE 19 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
Split Sample of
349 and 350 Voters
± 5.2%
699 Respondents
± 3.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1963
Methodology
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by subgroups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 19 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Telephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample.

Voters recruited via email and text were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only voters who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each voter could complete the survey only one time. A total of 699 surveys were completed between September 23 and September 28, 2025.

DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabulations.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1964
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 1
City of San Carlos
Bond & Sales Tax Survey
Final Toplines (n=699)
September 2025
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Carlos. Were conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and Id like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.

Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in San Carlos.

Q1 How long have you lived in San Carlos?
1 Less than 1 year 1%
2 1 to 4 years 12%
3 5 to 9 years 12%
4 10 to 14 years 12%
5 15 years or longer 63%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Carlos? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 49%
2 Good 43%
3 Fair 6%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1965
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make San Carlos a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Not sure / Cannot think of anything 13%
Improve, maintain infrastructure 8%
Provide affordable housing 7%
Limit growth, development 7%
Add, improve sidewalks, bike lanes 6%
Reduce traffic congestion 6%
No changes / Everything is fine 6%
Improve public safety 5%
Provide, improve parks, rec areas 5%
Enforce traffic laws 5%
Improve, address downtown parking issues 4%
Add community pool 4%
Improve public transit 3%
Cleaner city, improve landscaping 3%
Improve shopping, dining options 3%
Provide more rec activities for all ages 3%
Improve, develop downtown area 2%
Improve schools, education 2%
Put utility wires underground 2%
Provide community, cultural events 2%
Increase police presence, faster response,
have own police department 2%
Improve city planning, development 2%
Encourage, support small business 2%
Improve environmental efforts 2%
Open up Laurel Street 2%
Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Carlos is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 40%
2 Somewhat satisfied 46%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 8%
4 Very dissatisfied 2%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1966
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Section 3: Initial Ballot Tests
Next year, voters in San Carlos may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure.

Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q5 & Q6.

Q5
In order to: o Revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian- friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking shall City of San Carlos measure be adopted authorizing 60 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $20 per $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) assessed value (4 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 28% Skip to Q9
2 Probably yes 31% Skip to Q9
3 Probably no 16% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 14% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 10% Ask Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q9
Q6
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Taxes already too high 20%
Other higher priorities in community 19%
Need more information 13%
City infrastructure okay as-is, no need for
more money
12%
Not sure / No particular reason 12%
Measure too expensive 9%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 7%
Cost of living already too high, inflation 6%
City needs more transparency, show where
the money is spent 4%
Other ways to be funded 3%
City already has enough money in budget 2%
Do not support bonds, increased debt 2%
Do not trust City, Council 2%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1967
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
Mentioned past ballot measure 1%
Concern about specifics of project list 1%
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Salex Tax) gets Q7 & Q8.

Q7
To provide funding for San Carlos city services, such as: o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area o Fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion o And supporting fire protection, police, and 9-1-1 emergency response Shall City of San Carlos ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 14 years, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 26% Skip to Q9
2 Probably yes 41% Skip to Q9
3 Probably no 10% Ask Q8
4 Definitely no 16% Ask Q8
98 Not sure 6% Ask Q8
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q9
Q8
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Taxes already too high 39%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 32%
Other higher priorities in community 11%
Need more information 10%
Not sure / No particular reason 9%
Other ways to be funded 8%
City already has enough money in budget 6%
Cost of living already too high, inflation 6%
City needs more transparency, show where
the money is spent 5%
City infrastructure okay as-is, no need for
more money
4%
Support current sales tax rate but not an
increase 3%
Do not trust City, Council 1%
Measure too expensive 1%
Money will go to staff, admin, pensions 1%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1968
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Section 4: Tax Threshold for Bond
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q9 & Q10.

Q9
The amount home owners will pay if the bond passes depends on the assessed value of their home not the current market value of the home.

If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 (one hundred thousand) dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
If needed: The assessed value of your home is listed on your property tax bill.

Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.

If respondent says definitely yes, record definitely yes for all LOWER dollar amounts and go to next question.

Ask in Order
Definitely
yes
Probably
yes
Probably
no
Definitely
no
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A $20 21% 27% 17% 22% 12% 2%
B $14 25% 27% 16% 19% 13% 1%
C $7 36% 27% 12% 14% 9% 1%
Q10
Let me put it another way: If you knew that this measure would cost the typical home owner about $225 per year, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 25%
2 Probably yes 29%
3 Probably no 14%
4 Definitely no 20%
98 Not sure 10%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 5: Projects & Services
Q11
The measure weve been discussing would provide funding for a variety of city projects and services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)? Randomize
Strongly
favor
Somewhat
favor
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
All respondents receive items A-K.

A
Make downtown San Carlos pedestrianfriendly with redesigned streets, wider sidewalks and connected public plazas
45% 28% 10% 11% 6% 1%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1969
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
B Provide additional outdoor public seating and
dining areas downtown 29% 36% 14% 10% 9% 1%
C Provide spaces downtown for community
events, activities, and festivals 33% 38% 11% 8% 10% 1% D Improve street trees and landscaping 33% 43% 8% 7% 8% 1% E Improve infrastructure, utilities, and lighting
downtown 32% 43% 9% 5% 10% 1%
F Improve parking downtown 30% 39% 14% 7% 8% 1%
G Provide public restrooms downtown 28% 34% 14% 12% 10% 1% H Install public art downtown 15% 34% 18% 18% 14% 1%
I Improve public transit access to downtown 26% 34% 14% 11% 14% 1% J Provide EV charging stations downtown 15% 30% 20% 20% 14% 1% K Provide safe, protected bicycle lanes 31% 35% 12% 13% 8% 1% Only Sample B (Sales Tax) receives items L-S.

L Fix potholes and maintain city streets 60% 30% 3% 2% 6% 0% M
Make improvements to roads, intersections,
bike lanes, and signals to improve traffic
safety and reduce congestion
52% 29% 6% 7% 5% 1%
N
Repair aging infrastructure including
stormdrains, sidewalks, curbs, and public
facilities
52% 33% 4% 2% 7% 1%
O Provide fire protection and paramedic
services 59% 28% 4% 1% 6% 1%
P Maintain quick responses to 9-1-1
emergencies 65% 23% 3% 2% 6% 1%
Q Provide law enforcement services, including
crime prevention and investigations 46% 34% 7% 5% 7% 1% R
Keep existing parks, recreation, and
community facilities safe, clean, and wellmaintained 64% 29% 3% 1% 2% 0% S
Be better prepared for emergencies and
natural disasters including wildfires, floods,
and sea-level rise
48% 33% 7% 5% 7% 0%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1970
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
Section 6: Positive Arguments
What Id like to do now is tell you what some people say about the measure weve been discussing.

Q12 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Randomize
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
All respondents receive items A-F.

A
All money raised by the measure will be
reinvested here in San Carlos. By law, it cant
be taken away by the State or County.
38% 36% 11% 9% 5% 2%
B
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including independent audits
and public disclosure of how all funds are
spent.
24% 41% 13% 12% 7% 2%
C
This measure will create a vibrant downtown
San Carlos by helping existing businesses
thrive, attracting new dining and shopping
opportunities for residents, and stimulating
the local economy.
29% 40% 15% 10% 5% 1%
D
The City of San Carlos has 364 million dollars
in unfunded projects that need to be
completed. The longer we wait to fix our
streets, infrastructure, and facilities, the more
expensive it will become.
30% 34% 21% 8% 6% 2%
E
This measure will make downtown San Carlos
easier to visit through improvements to
parking, transit, bikeways, and accessibility
for people with disabilities.
24% 41% 17% 12% 4% 2%
F
All improvements to downtown will follow the
Downtown Specific Plan, which was created
with extensive involvement and input from
residents, property owners, and business
owners to meet the needs of the community
now and into the future.
24% 44% 12% 11% 7% 2%
Only Sample B (Sales Tax) receives items G-J.

G
By keeping our city safe, clean, and wellmaintained, this measure will help protect our quality of life and keep San Carlos a special
place to live.
29% 47% 12% 6% 5% 1%
H
A sizeable percentage of the money raised by
the sales tax will come from people who visit
or pass through San Carlos, but dont live
here. This measure will make sure they pay
their fair share for the facilities and services
they use while in our city.
20% 36% 22% 15% 5% 1%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1971
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
I
Most of the sales tax generated locally goes
to the State of California and the County. This
measure ensures that a higher percentage of
our sales tax dollars stay here in San Carlos
and we have local control over how those
funds are spent.
31% 37% 17% 6% 8% 1%
J
The City maintains 87 miles of streets, 105
miles of sewer pipes, and 13 parks and
playfields. This measure provides the funding
we need to keep our streets, infrastructure,
and parks in good condition.
28% 46% 13% 6% 6% 1%
Section 7: Interim Ballot Tests
Sometimes people change their minds about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again.

Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q13.

Q13
In order to: o Revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian- friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking shall City of San Carlos measure be adopted authorizing 60 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $20 per $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) assessed value (4 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 25%
2 Probably yes 29%
3 Probably no 19%
4 Definitely no 17%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1972
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets Q14.

Q14
To provide funding for San Carlos city services, such as: o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area o Fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion o And supporting fire protection, police, and 9-1-1 emergency response Shall City of San Carlos ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 14 years, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 31%
2 Probably yes 39%
3 Probably no 12%
4 Definitely no 13%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 8: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure say.

Q15 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize. Split Sampe A1/A2 and B1/B2
using odd/even clusters.

Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A1
Residents and local businesses have been hit
hard by inflation, high interest rates, and cost
of living increases. Many are struggling to
stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes.
35% 36% 22% 4% 3% 1%
A2
Our community is already an expensive place
to live, especially for young families and
those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax
increase will make it even less affordable.
30% 35% 19% 11% 4% 0%
B1
Reconstructing downtown will involve 10
years of noisy construction, dust, and extra
traffic congestion.
26% 31% 26% 11% 3% 1%
B2
Redeveloping our downtown will change the
fabric of our small town by attracting more
visitors, more development, and more traffic.
16% 32% 29% 17% 5% 1%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1973
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
C
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases
including state and county taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes that will be on the
ballot next year. Enough is enough. We cant
afford to keep raising our taxes.
34% 34% 21% 6% 3% 1%
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets items D & E.

D
Dont be fooled. With interest, this bond will
cost taxpayers about $120 million and take
30 years to pay off.
22% 35% 21% 11% 9% 2%
E
Our city has more pressing needs than
redesigning a few blocks downtown. We
should spend our money on more important
priorities like public safety, affordable
housing, and fixing our streets.
29% 36% 21% 8% 5% 1%
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets item F.

F
There are no guarantees on how funds will be
spent, which means the City can divert the
money to pet projects without any say from
voters. We cant trust the City with our tax
dollars.
28% 35% 17% 14% 6% 1%
Section 9: Final Ballot Tests
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time.

Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q16.

Q16
In order to: o Revitalize downtown San Carlos including redesigned, pedestrian- friendly streets, improved connectivity to public transit, interconnected public plazas and parks, safer sidewalks, outdoor seating and dining, spaces for community events and activities, and improved infrastructure, utilities, lighting, and parking shall City of San Carlos measure be adopted authorizing 60 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $20 per $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) assessed value (4 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 23%
2 Probably yes 28%
3 Probably no 21%
4 Definitely no 18%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1974
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 11
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets Q17.

Q17
To provide funding for San Carlos city services, such as: o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, stormdrains, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Repairing aging infrastructure and revitalizing the downtown area o Fixing potholes and relieving traffic congestion o And supporting fire protection, police, and 9-1-1 emergency response Shall City of San Carlos ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 14 years, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 28%
2 Probably yes 37%
3 Probably no 14%
4 Definitely no 15%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 10: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

Q18 How often do you visit downtown San Carlos? At least once per week, two or three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or never? 1 At least once per week 71%
2 Two or three times per month 20%
3 Once per month 5%
4 Less often than once per month 2%
5 Never 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q19 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 32%
2 No 65%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1975
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 12
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 50%
2 Female 47%
3 Non-binary <1%
4 Prefer not to answer 3%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 59%
2 Republican 16%
3 Other 8%
4 DTS 17%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 11%
2 30 to 39 12%
3 40 to 49 17%
4 50 to 64 32%
5 65 or older 28%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2020 9%
2 Jun 2016 to before Nov 2020 14%
3 Jun 2012 to before Jun 2016 10%
4 Before June 2012 68%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1976
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of San Carlos True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 City of San Carlos Bond & Sales Tax Survey September 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 13
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 26%
2 Dual Dem 21%
3 Single Rep 5%
4 Dual Rep 4%
5 Single Other 11%
6 Dual Other 6%
7 Dem & Rep 6%
8 Dem & Other 13%
9 Rep & Other 6%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 78%
2 No 22%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 96%
2 No 4%
S8 Likely November 2026 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Likely June 2026 Voter
1 Yes 74%
2 No 26%
S10 Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
1 Yes 56%
2 No 44%

9.a
November 10, 2025 Packet Pg. 1977

San Carlos City CouncilNovember 10, 2025

San Carlos City Council
November 10, 2025