Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, June 8, 2026 (part 2 of 11)

9.k
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 174
2026 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project (C1736)
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS:

1. Bid Proposal Bid Schedule (Page P-7)
Replace bid proposal page P-7 with attached.

2. Technical Provisions, Measurement and Payment (Page TP-4) Replace technical provisions page TP-4 with attached.

Page 2 of 3 ends

9.k
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 175
Response to Bidder Questions
Date: May 5, 2026
To: Interested Firms and Individuals
From: City of San Carlos, Public Works Department
Subject: Q&A for the 2026 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project (C1736) The City received the following questions (in bold) from the contractors. Answers are in plain type below each question.

1. Question 1: Which quantities should govern for bidding purposes — the Bid Schedule as written, or the quantities given from Appendix C?
The Bid Schedule quantities shall govern for bidding purposes. These quantities include a 10% increase from the Appendix C quantities as a contingency measure.

2. Question 2: How should bidders account for the unknown pipe segments listed in Appendix C that are absent from the Bid Schedule? “Unknown” pipe segment lengths are accounted for and included in the total length calculated under the following item: Sewer Cleaning and Inspection, 6”.

Page 3 of 3 ends

9.k
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 176
Bid Item No. 2 — Traffic Control
(Per Lump Sum)
Measurement and payment for this item shall be on a lump sum basis. Payment for this item will be prorated over the course of the project based upon the percentage complete of all items. This bid item includes full compensation for preparing detailed traffic control plans approved by the City of San Carlos as required; placing, adjusting and removing temporary traffic control measures, such as, but not limited to, flags, cones, barricades, crash barriers, signs, and flaggers (personnel dedicated to controlling and managing traffic), traffic control signs both as required by the Contract Drawings and as part of the approved detailed traffic control plan, and all incidentals necessary for worker, pedestrian and traffic protection, including furnishing all equipment, materials and personnel associated therewith, and in accordance with the project Technical Specifications. Traffic control shall be provided for all project work areas and shall be provided for the duration of the project.

Bid Items No. 3 through 11 — Sewer Cleaning and Inspection, (Pipe Diameter) (Per Linear Foot)
Sewer cleaning and inspection will be measured for payment by the linear foot in a plane along the longitudinal axis of the pipe as recorded by cable footage. The measurement will be from the center of manholes, or where the sewer does not terminate in a manhole, it shall be measured to the end of the pipe as constructed.

Payment for Bid Items No. 3 through 11, “Sewer Cleaning and Inspection, (Pipe Diameter),” compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision to perform all work necessary for three passes of cleaning, if necessary, CCTV inspection and documentation, as included and in accordance with these Specifications.

If the cleaning and/or inspection of a section cannot be successfully performed due to blockage, measurement and payment shall be by the linear foot completed, excluding the length of sewer main that was not inspected by CCTV.

END OF SECTION
Technical Provisions 2026 Sewer System CCTV Inspection Project Page TP-4 Project No. C1736

9.k
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 177

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving the List of Proposed Streets Scheduled to be Resurfaced as Part of the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project in Fiscal Year 2026-27 Funded by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a list of streets scheduled to be resurfaced as part of the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (“Project”) in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 funded by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications, and no additional appropriation is needed to approve the list of the 39 proposed street segments (Attachment 2 – Project Street List) scheduled to be included as part of the Project in FY 2026-27.

Funding for the Project in the amount of $9 million was adopted as part of the FY 2025-27 budget on June 9, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

SB 1 was filed with the Secretary of State on April 28, 2017. This bill established a Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) in the State Transportation Fund that is intended to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system as well as the local street and road systems.

Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the California State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds to the California Transportation Commission by July 1 each year. All projects proposed to receive the funding must be adopted by a Resolution of the city council at a regular public meeting each fiscal year in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 2034(a)(1).

The Project will be funded with the FY 2026-27 apportionment and any projects previously listed will continue to receive funding in FY 2026-27.

The bill also requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt criteria to ensure efficient use of these funds. The RMRA funds will be provided to cities monthly. Based on estimates provided by CaliforniaCityFinance.com, the City of San Carlos is expected to receive an estimated $864,852 of RMRA funds in FY 2026-27.

9.l
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 178
The City uses a Pavement Management Program (PMP) called StreetSaver to assess and prioritize pavement needs using industry-standard data and analysis. This system helps the City determine the most effective treatment for each street—whether it’s a slurry seal, asphalt overlay, or full reconstruction—ensuring that we preserve and improve our roadway network efficiently. By following this data-driven approach, we’re able to extend the life of our streets and make the best use of public resources.

ANALYSIS:

The attached Resolution must be submitted before July 1, 2026, to satisfy the requirements of SB 1 relative to ensuring that local governments efficiently invest public funds to maintain public streets and roads, and especially the following addition to the Streets and Highways Code:
2034.
(a) (1) Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, an eligible city or county shall submit to the commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget. All projects proposed to receive funding shall be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. The list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds shall include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 2030.

The proposed Resolution satisfies the criteria listed above and is acceptable confirmation that the Project is included in the City’s approved Capital Improvement Program. In accordance with the Code, the Resolution must also be adopted by the City Council at a regular public meeting to be eligible to receive the FY funding.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the list of proposed streets scheduled to be resurfaced as part of the Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project in FY 2026-27 funded by SB 1; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Alex Tat, Principal Engineer; and
Steven Machida, Public Works Director

9.l
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 179
Approved for submission by:
____________________________
Kathy Kleinbaum, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution
Exhibit A to Resolution – Project Street List

9.l
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 180
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 – ____

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

APPROVING THE LIST OF PROPOSED STREETS SCHEDULED TO BE

RESURFACED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT IN FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1, THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017.

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and WHEREAS, SB1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our city are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year (FY); and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a project or list of projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $864,852 in RMRA funding in FY 2026-27 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the tenth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management Program to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate approximately 39 street segments and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the city in FY 2026-27 and similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an “at-risk” or “poor” condition, and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a “good” or “excellent” condition; and WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in the local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

9.l
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 181
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of San Carlos, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following previously proposed and adopted project will utilize FY 2026-27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in their delivery. With the relisting of this project in the adopted fiscal year resolution, the City is reaffirming to the public and the state our intent to fund this project with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: 2026 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project Project Description: Rehabilitate and maintain existing pavement along various streets throughout the city.

Project Street List and Location(s): See Exhibit A. The locations identified are subject to be changed.

Estimated Project Schedule: Start (04/27) to Completion (10/27) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds.

Estimated Project Useful Life: 3-7 years for slurry sealing and 15-25 years for asphalt concrete overlay.
* * * * *
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 8th day of June 2026, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A – Project Street List
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

9.l
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 182
Project Title: 2026 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project Project Description: Rehabiltate and maintain the existing pavement along various streets through the City listed below:

No. Street Name Street Segment (Begin to End)
Estimated
Project
Schedule
(FY)
Estimated
Project
Useful
Life (Yrs)
Treatment
1 BRITTAN AVENUE DRAKE COURT TO CRESTVIEW DRIVE 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 2 CEDAR STREET SAN CARLOS AVENUE TO ORANGE AVENUE 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 3 HOWARD AVENUE LAUREL STREET TO ELM STREET 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 4 OLD COUNTY ROAD WASHINGTON STREET TO CITY LIMITS 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 5 ELIZABETH STREET CORDILLERAS AVENUE TO TAMARACK AVENUE 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 6 ELIZABETH STREET TAMARACK AVENUE TO KNOLL DRIVE 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 7 ELM STREET ARROYO AVENUE TO MORSE BOULEVARD 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 8 HOLLY STREET INDUSTRIAL ROAD TO EL CAMINO REAL 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 9 HOWARD AVENUE ELM STREET TO CEDAR STREET 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 10 MALABAR COURT CRESTVIEW DRIVE TO END 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 11 MAJORCA WAY BRITTAN AVENUE TO END 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 12 MIRAMONTE COURT BUCKLAND AVENUE TO END 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 13 OLD COUNTY ROAD CITY LIMITS TO BRAGATO ROAD 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 14 OLD COUNTY ROAD BRAGATO ROAD TO TAYLOR ROAD 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 15 PEARL AVENUE CORDILLERAS AVENUE TO ST. FRANCIS WAY 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 16 ROCKRIDGE ROAD ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS TO END 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 17 RUTHERDALE AVENUE ELIZABETH STREET TO END 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 18 SAN CARLOS AVENUE ELM STREET TO CORDILLERAS AVENUE 26-27 15-25 AC OVERLAY 19 ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS SAN CARLOS AVENUE TO BRITTAN AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 20 ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS BRITTAN AVENUE TO EATON AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 21 BRITTAN AVENUE TRAMANTO DRIVE TO DRAKE COURT 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 22 CEDAR STREET BRITTAN AVENUE TO HOWARD AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 23 CRESTVIEW DRIVE CRESTVIEW COURT TO END 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 24 CRESTVIEW DRIVE BRITTAN AVENUE TO CRESTVIEW COURT 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 25 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LESLIE DRIVE TO BRITTAN AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 26 CRESTVIEW DRIVE NORMANDY COURT TO LESLIE DRIVE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 27 CRESTVIEW DRIVE CLUB DRIVE TO NORMANDY COURT 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 28 ELM STREET MAGNOLIA STREET TO SAN CARLOS AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 29 OLD COUNTY ROAD TAYLOR BOULEVARD TO SPRINGFIELD DRIVE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 30 OLD COUNTY ROAD SPRINGFIELD DRIVE TO HOLLY STREET 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 31 FAIRMONT AVENUE CEDAR STREET TO PEARL AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 32 GREENWOOD AVENUE CEDAR STREET TO CORDILLERAS AVENUE 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 33 HOLLY STREET EL CAMINO REAL TO ELM STREET 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 34 HOWARD AVENUE OLD COUNTY ROAD TO EL CAMINO REAL 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 35 LOMA ROAD LA MESA DRIVE TO GREENBRIER ROAD 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 36 OAK STREET LAUREL STREET TO ELM STREET 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 37 OLD COUNTY ROAD MC CUE AVENUE TO CHERRY STREET 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 38 OLD COUNTY ROAD CHERRY STREET TO TERMINAL WAY 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL 39 RUBY AVENUE CORDILLERAS AVENUE TO ST. FRANCIS WAY 26-27 3-7 SLURRY SEAL Exhibit A to Resolution - Proposed List of Streets

9.l
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 183

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Certifying the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving the Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Parks Master Plan; Adopting a Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the City of San Carlos General Plan; and Adopting a Resolution Adopting the Parks Master Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt three Resolutions to:

1. Certify the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

2. Adopt the amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element of the General Plan; and

3. Adopt the Parks Master Plan.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications, and no additional funding is needed.

Funding for implementation of projects included in the Parks Master Plan (“Plan”) is appropriated in fiscal year (FY) 2027-28 and FY 2028-2029. Funding for FY 2026-27 will be included in the mid-year budget review for Council to consider.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council, at its January 2023 strategic planning retreat added a new goal, Recreational Services, with an objective to complete a Parks Master Plan assessment and conceptual design of a community center. The Council formally initiated the Parks Master Plan update, including the General Plan amendments, in May 2024.

The City of San Carlos’ General Plan was updated in May 2025 to extend the planning horizon to 2045, update policies, and permit additional development capacity. The General Plan serves as the official policy document to guide new development over a 20-year time horizon. State Senate Bill (SB) 1425 requires jurisdictions to update their General Plans to address equitable access, climate resilience and rewilding opportunities. In addition, State Assembly Bill (AB) 1889 requires June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 184

10.a
General Plans to address habitat connectivity and wildlife passage. These bills necessitate additional updates to the General Plan that were not included in the adopted May 2025 update.

The consultant team conducted three rounds of community engagement to inform the Parks Master Plan and General Plan amendments. The first round, held from August 9 to September 9, 2024, included a community survey, virtual meetings, stakeholder focus groups, and pop-up events to gather broad input on community preferences for existing amenities, programs, and future aspirations. The second round conducted from March 21 to May 8, 2025, built on this foundation with a community workshop, survey, additional pop-up events, and public meetings to refine priorities and identify specific amenities and improvements. A third round, held from September 17 to 24, 2025, focused on site preferences for a new community and aquatic center through a workshop and online survey. Together, these engagement efforts have provided a comprehensive understanding of community priorities, guiding the development and direction of the Master Plan update and General Plan amendments.

The Parks, Recreation and Culture (PRC) Commission and City Council reviewed the Draft Parks Master Plan at several meetings and provided direction to staff and the consultant team for revisions. The revised Draft Parks Master Plan was published for public review and comment on March 9, 2026. The draft General Plan amendments and draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were published for public review and comment from April 16, 2026 through May 15, 2026 and notice of this hearing was published on May 28, 2026.

The PRC Commission, at its April 8, 2026 meeting, voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Parks Master Plan Update.

The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its May 18, 2026 meeting, adopted Resolution PTC 2026-07, recommending that the City Council certify the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopted Resolution PTC 2026-08, recommending that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element of the General Plan.

The purpose of this public hearing is for the City Council to receive public comments and consider adopting Resolutions (Attachments 1, 2, and 3) certifying the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopting the Parks Master Plan, and adopting the amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element of the General Plan.

ANALYSIS:

Parks Master Plan Update
The vision of the Parks Master Plan is to create a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable parks and recreation system that supports community wellness, celebrates diversity, and enriches the lives of all San Carlos residents and visitors. The Plan’s four goals serve as the framework to guide the growth and improvements of parks, open spaces, facilities, and recreation services over the next 20 years.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 185
The Plan’s goals are to:
1) Support and enhance the San Carlos Parks and Recreation System 2) Create an inclusive and accessible parks and recreation system that reflects the diverse needs of San Carlos residents and visitors
3) Encourage community vitality and wellness through placemaking and recreation 4) Support a sustainable way of life through parks and recreation From the community outreach, the top priorities identified for the Master Plan were to:
1) Renovate and improve existing parks
2) Add new recreational facilities (indoor and outdoor) 3) Renovate and improve existing open space
The highest ranked amenities or enhancements identified by community members include:
1) Aquatic center/pool
2) Shade amenities
3) Trees, lawns, planted areas
4) Sport courts
The Plan is designed to guide decision making for San Carlos Parks and Recreation Department over the next 20 years. The Plan is organized with an executive summary and chapters including:
 Chapter 1: Our Community provides demographics and recreation trends  Chapter 2: Our Future summarizes the community engagement process and provides a comprehensive needs analysis of community and city needs, including systemwide goals  Chapter 3: Vision, Goals and Recommendations outlines site-specific improvements  Chapter 4: Implementation includes a prioritization matrix, maintenance plan, improvement cost estimates, and funding sources
The park improvement recommendations for each park site and facility are based on community input through multiple rounds of outreach and stakeholder interviews identifying improvements needed and priorities. Recommendations were also based on consultant expertise from best practices, in addition to site assessments, national and local standards and trends, interviews with Parks and Recreation and Public Works staff, councilmembers, and the PRC Commission.

The Parks Master Plan includes systemwide goals and recommendations, design principals, park classification, park improvements, facility improvements, future park and facility opportunities, and recreation and park programming. Specifically, Chapter 3.4 recommends the timing for improvements to each park site and facility: short-term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-20 years). Chapter 3.7 includes programming recommendations.

The Draft Parks Master Plan was available for public review and comment from March 9, 2026 through March 30, 2026. The public comments received during the public review period and responses are included on the project website www.sancarlosparksmp.com. Key comments on the Parks Master Plan included:
 Strong support for keeping sandboxes at playgrounds (high-use, inclusive play)  Desire to maintain natural character, trees, and open space

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 186
 Need for multi-use, flexible spaces versus single-purpose facilities  Concerns about pickleball/tennis tradeoffs and loss of open areas  Opposition to a pump track at Arguello Park (safety, noise, neighborhood fit)  Requests to prioritize improvements in underserved parks  Positive feedback on an aquatic center, playground upgrades, new amenities  Concerns about parking, scale, and neighborhood impacts of new amenities, (e.g. aquatic/recreation center, pump track)
 Need for more athletic field capacity and turf conversion  Interest in expanded programming, events, and community partnerships Several of the commentors were supportive of the recommended improvements to the parks.

While there is strong support for maintaining sandboxes, the removal of sandboxes is necessary due to contamination concerns and lessons learned from neighboring cities. Also, some comments cannot be accommodated due to site constraints (additional court and field spaces).

The pump track was recommended as an active youth amenity, for a traditionally underserved teen group, in an area that was informally used as such in the past. These comments can be considered with the site planning and design of the pump track to minimize impact.

The PRC Commission reviewed the Parks Master Plan update at its April 8, 2026 meeting. Public comments received at that meeting from the San Mateo County Astronomical Society requested any future lighting at Crestview Park be designed to accommodate star gazing events. This request will be incorporated in the final Parks Master Plan. The PRC Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the Parks Master Plan update.

Based on comments received from the tribal consultations, public comments, and PRC Commission comments, staff recommend several amendments to the Parks Master Plan (see Exhibit B to Attachment 3). The amendments include a land acknowledgement, correction to a service level gap in Chapter 2, placemaking in Chapter 3, respecting native representatives in Chapter 3.2, a recommendation for a snack shack at Burton Park, consultation with the San Mateo County Astronomical Society for lights at Crestview Park, and a revision of the priority matrix for pickleball courts from medium to high. Staff recommend the City Council adopt the Parks Master Plan with these amendments.

The Parks Master Plan update is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3, and the amendments with final edits are included as Exhibit B.

General Plan Amendments
In conjunction with the Parks Master Plan update, the consultant team prepared amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan. The amendments to the General Plan Elements are prepared for consistency with the Parks Master Plan recommendations and in compliance with SB 1425 and AB 1889 relating to open space policies.

The Environmental Management Element has been updated to be in compliance with SB 1425 to address equitable access, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities, and in accordance with

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 187
AB 1889 to address habitat connectivity and wildlife passage.

The Parks and Recreation Element update also includes policies to comply with SB 1425 and AB 1889, revises the park list to reflect existing conditions and current names, reclassifies Laureola Park as a community park, emphasizes multi-use and multi-generational spaces in several goals and actions, incorporates the adopted 2012 Hillside Trails Plan, and updates content for consistency with the recommendations in the Parks Master Plan.

The Draft General Plan Amendments were published for public review and comment on April 16, 2026. No public comments have been received as of the date of this staff report.

The amended versions of the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan are included as Exhibits A and B to Attachment 2.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City has undertaken an environmental review of the Parks Master Plan and amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element of the General Plan (the “Project”) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The potential for the Project to result in environmental impacts was assessed in an initial study addressing all environmental topics under CEQA per section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines. Technical analysis supported conclusions in the initial study . Based on the analyses, the initial study concluded that, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the initial study, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts.

Consistent with AB 52, notification of the project and an opportunity for consultation were provided to Native American tribes listed by the Native American Heritage Commission prior to the release of the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND). Two tribes requested consultation, and City staff met with representatives from the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan. Based on their comments, a mitigation measure was added requiring tribal monitoring during certain construction activities, as well as a mitigation measure requiring tribal cultural resources training for applicable construction projects.

The CEQA analysis found some impacts that could potentially be significant without mitigation.

They are included in full in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B to Attachment 1) and summarized below with the proposed mitigation measures:
• Aesthetics: Require use of non-reflective, low-glare materials in new and updated facilities
• Air Quality: Require preparation of a Construction Health Risk Assessment for projects with potential to cause air quality impacts to sensitive receptors • Biological Resources: Require pre-construction surveys for and avoidance of specialstatus plants, special-status species, and nesting birds and roosting bats; implement a worker environmental awareness training prior to construction; conduct formal delineation of any potential jurisdictional aquatic resources
• Cultural Resources: Require a site-specific study for large projects at Burton Park, implement protocols for accidental discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, formally document reburied Native Americans within Arguello Park

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 188
• Geology and Soils: Require a paleontological resources awareness training program for ground-disturbing activities deeper than 12 inches
• Hydrology and Water Quality: Implement erosion and pollution control measures during construction
• Tribal Cultural Resources: Require tribal cultural resources awareness training for construction crews, and ensure a tribal monitor is present for projects with extensive grading
With implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project will not result in a significant impact to the environment.

The IS/MND was available for a 30-day public review and comment period from April 16, 2026 through May 15, 2026. Notice of the availability of the MND was circulated to state and local agencies as required by CEQA guidelines and posted at City Hall, the San Mateo Daily Journal, and at the County of San Mateo. One public comment from CalTrans was received during the comment period requesting the IS/MND reference Caltrans District 4 Multimodal System Planning efforts including the Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan and Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan. The request has been incorporated in the IS/MND as included in Exhibit A to Attachment 1.

Public Notice
The public notice for this public hearing was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal (Attachment 4) on May 28, 2026.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopt a Resolution adopting the amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan, and adopt a Resolution adopting the Parks Master Plan or

2. Do not adopt the three proposed Resolutions; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Amy Newby, Parks & Recreation Director
Approved for submission by:
_________________________________
Kathy Kleinbaum, City Manager

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 189
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution 1 – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit A to Resolution 1 – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B to Resolution 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Resolution 2 – General Plan Amendments
Exhibit A to Resolution 2 – Parks and Recreation Element with tracked Amendments Exhibit B to Resolution 2 – Environmental Management Element with tracked Amendments

3. Resolution 3 – Parks Master Plan
Exhibit A to Resolution 3 – San Carlos Parks Master Plan Draft March 2026 Exhibit B to Resolution 3 – Parks Master Plan Amendments

4. Public Notice

5. CEQA Comment

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 190
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 – ____

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

CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

APPROVING THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE PARKS MASTER PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE PARKS AND

RECREATION ELEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.

WHEREAS, in May 2024, the City Council initiated an update to the Parks Master Plan and related updates to the Parks and Recreation and Environmental Management Elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Government Code Section 65300 et seq., the amendments made to the Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element have been developed to be consistent with environmental and climate objectives, and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element have been prepared in compliance with state Senate Bill 1425 and AB 1889; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2026, the City provided written notification of the proposed Parks Master Plan and General Plan Amendments to Native American tribes included on the list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission; and WHEREAS, City staff participated in consultation with representatives from the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay and included recommendations in the Parks Master Plan consistent with comments from tribe representatives and modified mitigation measures to be responsive to tribe representative requests; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and circulated for a 30-day public review period from April 16, 2026 through May 18, 2026 to solicit agency and public input on the analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the project and amendments to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution PTC2026-07 adopted on May 18, 2026, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Parks Master Plan and General Plan update pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the IS/MND; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 8, 2026 to consider the IS/MND and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby certifies the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) and approves the Mitigation Monitoring

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 191
and Reporting Program (Exhibit B) prepared for the Parks Master Plan and amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan. * * * * *
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 8th day of June 2026, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibits:

A. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 192
Final Programmatic Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration
San Carlos Parks Master Plan
San Carlos, California
Prepared for: Prepared by:

City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attn: Lisa Costa Sanders
[email protected]
WRA, Inc.
2169 G East Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attn: Crystal Mainolfi
[email protected]
May 2026 WRA#340137
Srrel 5 ----
e as- Fa -- 2RMPN. 2,1
—
0 oettele
----
ge
sktalants
—4 j
Ess
vdne
wra
Environmental
Consultants
eos SoassoneAt Taofmt
— --
1e.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 193

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 194
*OUFOUJPOBMMZ-FGU#MBOL
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 i
Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...........................................................................................................1

2.1 Project Title...................................................................................................................1

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................................1

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ............................................................................1

2.4 Project Location............................................................................................................1

2.4.1 Regional Setting............................................................................................... 1

2.4.2 Local Setting ....................................................................................................3

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................8

3.1 Project Overview...........................................................................................................8

3.2 Project Background and Need .....................................................................................8

3.3 Plan Objectives .............................................................................................................8

3.4 Proposed Plan...............................................................................................................9

3.4.1 No Improvements Proposed..........................................................................17

3.4.2 Short-Term Improvements ............................................................................17

3.4.3 Mid-Term Improvements...............................................................................20

3.4.4 Long-Term Improvements.............................................................................22

3.5 General Plan Amendments.........................................................................................23

3.6 Project Construction ...................................................................................................25

3.7 Plan Operation............................................................................................................25

3.8 Plan-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits .................................................32

3.8.1 City of San Carlos ..........................................................................................33

3.8.2 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board..........................33

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.........................................................34

4.1 Determination .............................................................................................................34

4.2 Initial Study Checklist.................................................................................................35

4.2.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................36

4.2.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................................................. 40

4.2.3 Air Quality.......................................................................................................42

4.2.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................50

4.2.5 Cultural Resources .........................................................................................73

4.2.6 Energy.............................................................................................................80

4.2.7 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................83

4.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................90 (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 195
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 ii

4.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 93

4.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................98

4.2.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................105

4.2.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................106

4.2.13 Noise.............................................................................................................107

4.2.14 Population and Housing ..............................................................................112

4.2.15 Public Services ............................................................................................. 114

4.2.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................116

4.2.17 Transportation.............................................................................................. 118

4.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................123

4.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................127

4.2.20 Wildfire .........................................................................................................132

4.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................... 136

5.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.................................................................................................139

5.1 Response to Comment Letter A...............................................................................142

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...................................................143

7.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 160 List of Tables
Table 1. San Carlos City Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities .............................................................3 Table 2. Land Uses Surrounding San Carlos Parks..............................................................................4 Table 3. Short-Term Improvements (0-5 Years).................................................................................9 Table 4. Mid-Term Improvements (5-10 Years) ...............................................................................13 Table 5. Long-Term Improvements (10+ Years) ...............................................................................16 Table 6. Potential Changes to Park Operations ................................................................................25 Table 7. Project Consistency with BAAD 2017 Clean Air Plan..........................................................45 Table 8. Summary of Cultural Resources Archival Record Search Results.......................................76 Table 9. Definition of Acoustical Terms ...........................................................................................108 Table 10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...............................................................144 List of Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location Map..........................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Park System Map...................................................................................................................6 (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 196
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 iii
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of the Plan Area......................................................................................7 Figure 4. Wayfinding sign in Big Canyon Park...................................................................................17 List of Appendices
Appendix A. Construction Details
Appendix B. Biological Resources Memorandum
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQP Air Quality Plan
BAAD Bay Area Air District
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
Biological Memorandum Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum BMPs best management practices
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CA-82 El Camino Real
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Register California Register of Historical Resources Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CALGreen Title 24 California Green Building Standards
Cal Water California Water Service
CAP Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAR California Aquatic Resource Inventory
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOC California Department of Conservation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERPs Community Emission Reduction Plans
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
City City of San Carlos
CMAP Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
CMCP Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalent
CSH Circulation and Scenic Highways
C&D construction and demolition
dB decibel
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 197
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 iv
dBA A-weighted sound level
DBH diameter at breast height
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBA Eileen Barrow & Associates
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESPS Environmental Safety and Public Services
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
GHG greenhouse gas
HMP Habitat Management Plan
HRA Health Risk Assessment
Hz Frequency
I-280 Interstate 280
IS Initial Study
Inventory Rare Plant Inventory
in/sec inches per second
Ldn day-night average noise level
Leq energy-equivalent noise level
Lmax maximum noise level
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLHMP Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OS Open Space
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P Public
PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PK Park
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PPV peak particle velocity
Rank California Rare Plant Rank
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 198
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 v
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG reactive organic gas
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SB Senate Bill
SCMC San Carlos Municipal Code
SCRCFD San Carlos and Redwood City Fire Department
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program SSC Species of Special Concern
SVCW Silicon Valley Clean Water
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
System Planning Caltrans District 4 Multimodal System Planning TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
US-101 U.S. Route 101
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VdB Vibration Decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WMP Waste Management Plan
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WRA WRA, Inc.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 199
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of San Carlos. This Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Programmatic IS/MND) evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the San Carlos Parks Master Plan and amendments to the City of San Carlos General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element, hereinafter referred to as the Plan.

The City of San Carlos is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Programmatic IS/MND to address the impacts of implementing the Plan. The purpose of the Project is to develop both a long-range vision and an implementation strategy for the Citywide park and recreation system.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Title
San Carlos Parks Master Plan

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of San Carlos Parks and Recreation Department
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lis Costa Sanders, Project Manager
[email protected]
(650) 802-4207

2.4 Project Location

2.4.1 Regional Setting
The Plan Area consists of 17 parks and open spaces within the City of San Carlos, which is located in central San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula. San Carlos covers 5.4 square miles and spans from the flat bayfront on the San Francisco Bay west towards the Santa Cruz Mountains. The City is bounded by Redwood City to the south, the City of Belmont to the north, open space preserves to the west, and Redwood Shores and the San Francisco Bay to the east. San Carlos is connected to the region by U.S. Route 101 (US-101) and a Caltrain station, both located on the City’s east side, El Camino Real (CA-82) and Interstate 280 (I-280) on the west. Surface streets also provide access in and out of San Carlos to neighboring communities.

The regional location of the Plan Area is shown in Figure 1.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 200
San Carlos
Library
Youth Center
Laureola
Building
Kiwanis
Building
Adult
Community
Center
Cedar
Street
Park
Laureola Park
Vista Park
North
Crestview
Park
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood
Park
Arguello Park
Hillcrest
Circle Park
City
Hall Dog
Park
Frank D.

Harrington Park
Heather Dog
Exercise Area
Burton Park
Eaton Park
Big
Canyon
Park
Crestview
Park
Highlands
Park
Rosek Park
Chilton Park
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\340000\340137\GIS\ArcMap\340137Base.aprx Layout Name:Fig 2-1 Regional Context Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: rhona.mcchesney, 1/8/2026 View Extent
San Carlos Parks Master Plan
San Mateo County, California
0 10.5
Miles
Figure 1. Regional Location Map
0 “o
.D O. %
mivaey Q
Walnut Creek C
3 gerPky P *
.Danville Co 9 an Francisco anRar
San Leandro
.. %ubli aSt Daly City South San 009 C
(
Pacific a*
• Frandsco
onRoyal Ave —0o.
c A
\
•I Millbrae .San Mateo ft 09 ?0 T Cp, 6
u El Grenada. Redwo Fremont < 5
I 6
P alo Alto 1 fee?
I C
' Oo, . '
o
al 880 A < . o 22 Bowspe
1 Campbell San3 y
Saratoga* Jose
LosGatos z 0 2
Boulder Creek* o. V,% mond • 4,09
"3
Y
%
b
t
“ar 0
San Carlos
o o
‘‘
Air
o) Q
“sDr woo 4f
stock Cir
So
" /
4 y s D %
9, 30 - ""*0.
s
Cs 7
o
> “Ts Piorrl / . c A
4 — 2
o .6 Y Y
-44 - C
0 +
(
Co
/
I 12
00 %‘s ' 4
7 ( 4 %
O %
o
0- -
St
21 “‘ee. O.

I
Cordilleras Ro
C. I
N,/
S,
<
. 1/ P
• < &
of <) t \
Ks
wra
c i ]
UAtllH
ISLAND
Environmental
Consultants
spu, / v’s
be. e.
i
।
I
l
l
Redwood
City
tn
46 o
% S
may* ’
1 >
1 C.
‘ Arroy”
Q
I - r
3 Scen, -
%
5 d
y) 7
= Dr
s
\
\
\
/
O%
, CA9"M7s Ws
, Hay \
N "
"ef t
) swith Slough
%
N
l
I
1 /
/
Y
qs) A
AK
arf
fo
q
r a“
6 u As
0y JQ
C
I l
Soh
O.
■ %,
%99
Bps Hat,
s
%
N
A
V
X
%
.6 Y
- - "MIIMU
Berkeley
V -
a
X
5 a
s
4%
Fat
-08
1 5
Hayward X * I
", /
A
%
",
—
aof
UDr
n*
gw
Ive
s‘ cs.
'^'Sl
e
o
1(4/
C51s 04< is <' — W
, -Sge w . ,4 ‘ o
«/
r
O3
8 Wsee “ (95
6 -
/.O S X
'
6/ vo 67 . % %
%
y"
Milpitas
.. ofe
4, < e'
l- \
&o.
%
‘s
%
—enoend
t
“ar
Or1, % ?
%
ors.
o « / (
le,
%
Half Mnowax mr
Sunnyvale
%
“%
"o
steinber
Orinda
Oakland MorSga
g
“m
% 8, ,9°

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 201
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 3 2.4.2 Local Setting

MASTER PLAN PARKS/FACILITIES
The Plan Area includes a total of 17 parks and open spaces which total 186.4 acres, comprising three community parks, five neighborhood parks, five mini-parks, two special use parks, two open spaces, and five facilities. Figure 2 shows the distribution of parks and recreational facilities throughout the City and Table 1 provides a summary of each park.

The City’s park system designates the following types of parks and recreational facilities (City of San Carlos 2008):
• Community Parks: 10- to 20-acre parks containing a wide variety of facilities for active and passive recreation, organized sports, and night use • Neighborhood Parks: 4- to 10-acre parks providing daily recreation for nearby residents
• Mini-Parks: Small parks less than 1 acre in size that accommodate daily recreation needs of nearby residents
• Special Use Areas: Parks providing unique recreational amenities (i.e., dog parks) • Open Spaces: Lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, open space and public education.

Table 1. San Carlos City Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities PARK NAME ACRES TYPE* LOCATION
Arguello Park 21.0 Community Park 260 Wellington Drive
Burton Park 10.3 Community Park 900 Chestnut Street
Highlands Park 11.3 Community Park 2600 Melendy Drive
Cedar Street 0.70 Mini-Park 10 Cedar Street
Frank D. Harrington Park 0.3 Mini-Park 759 Laurel Street Hillcrest Circle Park 0.2 Mini-Park 280 Hillcrest Road
Rosek Park 0.2 Mini-Park 455 Elm Street
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood Park

0.3 Mini-Park 2451 San Carlos Avenue
Chilton Park 1.6 Neighborhood Park 48 Bayview Drive
Crestview Park 7.0 Neighborhood Park 1000 Crestview Drive Laureola Park 2.6 Neighborhood Community
Park
503 Old Country Road
North Crestview Park 4.2 Neighborhood Park 350 Crestview Drive Vista Park 3.8 Neighborhood Park 401 Crestview Drive
Big Canyon Park 55.0 Open Space 3190 Brittan
Eaton Park 65.71 Open Space 3000 Eaton Avenue
City Hall Dog Park 1.3 Special Use 1401 San Carlos
Avenue
Heather Dog Exercise
Area

1.5 Special Use 2757 Melendy Drive
Adult Community Center - Facility 601 Chestnut St
Kiwanis Building - Facility 1017 Cedar St

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 202
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 4 PARK NAME ACRES TYPE* LOCATION
Laureola Building - Facility 503 Old County Rd
Library community room - Facility 610 Elm St
Youth Center - Facility 1001 Chestnut
The parks and open spaces feature trails which meander through chaparral, oak woodland, and riparian habitats; recreation areas including playgrounds and sports fields; public gathering spaces including native pollinator gardens in Vista and Chilton Parks; and picnic areas. The park facilities provide interior spaces for programming, including classes and other community events.

Parks and park facilities are generally surrounded by single-family residential land use. An aerial photograph of the City’s parks is provided in Figure 3.

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION
General Plan Land Use Designations: Park, Open Space, Public (City of San Carlos 2023) Zoning District: Park (PK), Open Space (OS), Public (P) (City of San Carlos 2024)

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Land uses surrounding each of the park sites are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2. Land Uses Surrounding San Carlos Parks
Park/Facility
Single
Family
Residential
Multifamily
Residential Mixed-Use School Open Space Public Neighborhood Retail Arguello Park X X
Big Canyon Park X X X
Burton Park X X
Cedar Street Park X
Chilton Park X
City Hall Dog Park X X X
Crestview Park X X
Eaton Park X
Frank D. Harrington
Park X
Heather Dog
Exercise Area X X
Highlands Park X X
Hillcrest Circle Park X
Laureola Park X X X
North Crestview
Park X X
Rosek Park X X

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 203
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 5 San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood Park X
Vista Park X X X

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 204
Figure 2. Park System Map
San Carlos Parks Master Plan
San Mateo County, California

SAN CARLOS PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM
4b Y \
y....
\ 7... V
...
\
2252 " s //J A
(
h
Iar te.
te is 5 Ve teeni 2
Mee y e ‘s
Mi
E woa d % se
As B
27 )
L “h
f tt
5 r
ase
O 0.5 MI
/
/
8 e
Nv. 2

COMMUNITY PARKS
( Arguello Park
© Burton Park
© Highlands Park
fac
gi
A , a

SPECIAL USE
O City Hall Dog Park
( Heather Dog Exercise Area

RECREATION FACILITIES
(A) Adult Community Center
(B) Kiwanis Building
(c) Laureola Park Building
@ Library Recreation Rooms
(E) Youth Center
Q

OPEN SPACE
( Big Canyon Park
( Eaton Park

MINI PARKS
© Cedar Street Park
Q Frank D. Harrington Park
Q Hillcrest Circle Park
( Rosek Park
(• San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park
tay.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
© Chilton Park
© Crestview Park
© Laureola Park
( North Crestview
(:) Vista Park
D)
(C
6 16
wra
Environmental
Consultants
(A
1 31
*
3 L r
$
3 W
4".
0 ■ cha
(
. \
U*..
ow
toht.
ns
26 V
wbsey ionke
/
As ea"
/
“y
: aa
X
Laset
„ V

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 205
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\340000\340137\GIS\ArcMap\340137Base.aprx Layout Name: Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of the Plan Area Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2022, WRA | Prepared By: jander, 2/19/2026 San Carlos Parks Master Plan
San Mateo County, California
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of the Plan Area
±
Park Boundaries
Facilities
SSgW"
2s y 9
J
sow o
t
s.
u
’ -W s
al .
% Jt. w
5 J
I" a 13 2
' fvJ
es <
4 C.
0 A
ct
hs
tes
fy.
■ 27 Y111
]
t
redro
adtifi
ot
. A
wrC
Environmental
Consultants
hhal
“15< '
Asteliite
i dat 2053 smes
% ,
1547 rJ t
osse
■ "004
(
g
3 5S‘ tr
wy V - Y
Twees $ ‘370
-PA

5.1111
‘osY
ha a
JAe r
we
PBraa
het
r

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 206
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 8 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Overview
The City initiated the preparation of a Parks Master Plan to guide the planning and implementation of parks, open space, and recreational facilities across the City’s 17 parks and two open spaces. The Plan will cover a wide variety of improvements to existing recreation facilities including passive parks, community centers, playgrounds, sport courts and fields, park amenities, and natural surface trail systems. Concepts for new facilities are proposed as part of the Plan, including potential new community centers, an aquatic facility, a bicycle pump track, and a mini ropes course. The Project also includes updates to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan for consistency with the Plan and compliance with State law.

3.2 Project Background and Need
City parks, open spaces, and facilities provide a multi-faceted offering of recreation and outdoors experiences. Park programming is provided through the Parks and Recreation Department and park maintenance is generally handled by the Public Works Department.

The most recent comprehensive planning effort for San Carlos parks was the preparation of a Community Needs Assessment and the Parks, Open Space, Buildings, and other Recreational Facilities Master Plan (Parks Facilities Master Plan) in 2008. The City’s General Plan Parks and Recreation Element (Recreation Element) was also adopted in 2008 and identifies community recreation needs and goals. The Plan will build on the Recreation Element’s goals to provide specific direction on improvements for each park and facility as well as a plan to execute these improvements. The City also adopted a Hillside Trails Master Plan (2012) to facilitate development of trails in open spaces to meet its trail provision goals. The Hillside Trails Master Plan provides specific guidance on trail alignments, trail design guidelines, and parking considerations for trail access. Given the Parks Facilities Master Plan was intended to be a 20- year plan, the City identified the need for a comprehensive update for City parks, open spaces and facilities and initiated the Plan process.

3.3 Plan Objectives
The purpose of the Plan is to develop both a long-range vision and an implementation strategy for the Citywide park and recreation system. The Plan builds on the 2008 Parks Master Plan to incorporate the substantial community input received during the 2024 Parks Master Plan process and identifies three phases of development over the next 20 years to address maintenance needs, updates to facilities and equipment, changes in recreation uses and activities, and accessibility.

Consistent with the Plan purpose, the proposed Plan has the following objectives:
• Assess the existing inventory of parks, open space, recreational facilities, and recreation programs.
• Understand community needs and establish a vision for future recreation opportunities in San Carlos.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 207
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 9 • Provide for equitable community access, community resilience, and rewilding of open spaces.
• Develop strategies and an action plan for enhancements to parks, open spaces, community facilities, and recreation programs.
• Implement short-term improvements within 5 years, mid-term improvements within 5-10 years, and long-term improvements after 10 years.

3.4 Proposed Plan
The Plan covers many elements of park management and programming in the City, including existing planning documents, discussion of recreation trends, existing facilities and their conditions, community priorities, goals for the City, implementation actions, and financing strategies. The Plan includes activities that vary widely in scale, and several will require additional development beyond the level of detail provided in the Plan. Because of the range of projects, the Plan proposes a phased approach to implement projects on a short-, mid-, and long-term basis. These projects are summarized in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, and additional detail is provided in the sections below.

Table 3. Short-Term Improvements (0-5 Years)

PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Adult Community
Center
Facility Renovate the kitchen to address deficiencies and provide:
• Improved circulation and better use of servery
space
• New appliances
• New flooring and other finishes
• Accessible pantry space
Arguello Park Community Park Site pump track at bend of Dartmouth/Northam Ave; considering fencing to block cyclists from entering trail network
Replace batting cage surfacing
Add accessible picnic tables at snack shack picnic area Implement citywide tree maintenance program
recommendations
Create an overlook at "the rocks" with interpretive
signage
Add wayfinding signage and trailhead kiosk for open
space trails
Add shade structure over picnic area and bleachers
Add and relocate picnic tables/bench seating in open
space area
Install park rules signage (including no biking)
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 208
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 10 PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Big Canyon Park Open Space Park Provide a vista point at end of Oak Meadow Trail (includes view area delineation with wooden fencing,
bench, interpretive signage, signage indicating “area
closed” beyond fencing)
Add wayfinding signage throughout the park
Implement flora/fauna app/website with QR Code on
signage at the site
Implement Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan Native Plant
Pilot Program
Add or restore park benches and picnic tables
Burton Park Community Park Add wayfinding signage at the Woodland Avenue park entrance
Improve lawn drainage at concert lawn
Improve field drainage at diamond fields
Prepare a tree succession plan in and implement
citywide tree maintenance program recommendations
Add formalized reservable picnic area with accessible
path and one ADA table (minimum) to concert lawn
Install weather-resistant material surfacing next to
concrete cornhole boards
Remove sandbox area from play area and repurpose
with usable play area
Cedar Street Park Mini-Park Implement citywide tree maintenance program recommendations
Replace fencing
City Hall Dog Park Special Use Park Enhance park landscape and dog agility amenities, consider theme elements or design
Replace picnic tables with benches and grouped seating
areas
Improve drainage at drinking fountain
Crestview Park Neighborhood Park Add permanent fencing between field and parking lot Improve pedestrian entrance at Leslie Drive and
perimeter trail in open space area (all-weather
surfacing, signage)
Plant two new trees (between parking lot and field)
Add shade structure over bleachers
Remove and repurpose sandbox to active play space
Eaton Park Open Space Park Improve fire road with durable surface and eliminate trail head erosion issues for maintenance vehicular
access
Improve wayfinding signage
Heather Dog
Exercise Area
Special Use Park Rename park and add city standard park sign Improve visibility and access into the site
Maintain and enhance landscaping within park site,
install irrigation system
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 209
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 11 PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Highlands Park Community Park Replace picnic area by Stadium Field into formalized reservable picnic area with accessible path and one ADA table (minimum)
Replace aging benches
Paint a community mural along the bleacher steps at
Stadium Field
Replace batting cage surfacing
Restripe the two dual-court tennis/pickleball courts to up to six permanent pickleball courts
Add net at Highlands Field for soccer (6 foot net
minimum)
Hillcrest Circle
Park
Mini-Park Replant landscaping (shrubs, groundcover, re-sod lawn, shade trees)
Improve pedestrian access with informational access
signage
Kiwanis Building Facility Consider a shortened, modified lease that aligns with the anticipated schedule for potential building
improvements. Determine whether the building will be
renovated for recreation programming (general
community use or event rental space), replaced with a
new facility, or designated as the future site of a new community and aquatic center.

Upon expiration of shortened lease, cease lease
agreement and return building to City operation for
greater community use.

Laureola Park CommunityNeighborhood
Park
Improve visibility and access from Old County Road and
Holly Street
Reclassify park to a Community Park
Add shade structure over bleachers
Prepare a park master plan with community
participation for the Laureola Park building and park
site; Consider purchasing adjacent parcel to expand
park site and improve access from Old County Road
Library
Community Room
Facility Provide improved storage for tables and chairs when not in use
Provide interactive wayfinding signage to direct visitors on the first and second floors in coordination with the library
Replace flooring
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood
Park
Mini-Park Rename park and update park sign
Replace playground, make inclusive (includes resurfacing to pour-in-place rubber surfacing)
Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables, drinking fountain, trash cans, sign, benches)
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 210
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 12 PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Remove overgrown shrubs at the entrance and sidewalk
to improve visibility and enhance park entrance
Replace fencing
Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing
Vista Park Neighborhood Park Update floral and plant signage Add natural theme fitness station elements
Consolidate regulation signage
Add interpretive signage
Add drinking fountain with domestic water source
Youth Center Facility Install large digital displays and new AV equipment in all program rooms
Replace HVAC system
Improve the acoustic separation of the Zen Den from the adjacent Game Room
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 211
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 13 Table 4. Mid-Term Improvements (5-10 Years)

PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Arguello Park Community Park Improve access to sunken picnic area Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing
Construct mini ropes course, embankment slide, and
zip line near Wellington Ave parking and implement
erosion control measures
Formalize existing trails (proper grading, surfacing,
drainage), consider realigning some trail segments,
and decommission others
Add park trails to existing trails maintenance contract Pave the fire road along Sheldon Avenue to provide a
multi-use maintenance and walking path/emergency
access path (required by adjacent private
development)
Big Canyon Park Open Space Area Install a restroom facility at the Brittan Avenue entrance adjacent to the street and labyrinth, include
an AED device to the structure and include wayfinding
signage across the street at Eaton Park entrance
Incorporate erosion control measures on open slopes
to enhance slope stability between Melendy Drive and
Drake Court
Consider integrating a floodplain detention basin as
noted in the Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan
Expand and enhance trail system per Hillside Trails
Plan, including designated ADA trail at Brittan Avenue
Burton Park Community Park Add improved access at Woodland Avenue and Brittan Avenue corner
Replace Kiwanis building with new community
building through master plan process
Cedar Street Park Mini-Park Replace and expand playground with new equipment, inclusive design (includes resurfacing to poured-inplace rubber), and remove the sandbox and repurpose for usable play space; consider utilizing the site's
existing topography to integrate play elements;
Consider community outreach during the design
process
Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing
Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables,
drinking fountain, trash receptacles, park sign,
benches)
Crestview Park Neighborhood Park Add standard safety lighting (motion detected, low brightness levels, consider solar powered)
Eaton Park Open Space Area Decommission all informal trails Add rolling dips on Eaton Trail between Vista Trail and Summit Trail and nearby portion of Vista Trail (where
moderate erosion is occurring)
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 212
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 14 PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Add water bars near Eaton Avenue entrance to reduce
erosion
Add rolling dips on upper section of Summit Trail
Introduce water bars along Hawk Hill trail (if not
being paved)
Update trails map to show all existing bench locations
Heather Dog
Exercise Area
Special Use Park Expand usable dog park area
Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing
Replace staircase with accessible ramp access
Add and replace standard amenities (drinking
fountain, benches, picnic table, dog waste station,
agility course)
Add domestic water source (for drinking fountain)
Add rest areas and restoration planting along
trail/open space area
Install new fence to separate city property from school property
Highlands Park Community Park Improve field drainage and replace grass turf at Stadium Field
Add fitness station elements along walking path
Formalize pedestrian entrance from Elston Court
Repave pathways around Stadium field with allweather resilient surfacing Add parking stalls by converting available unused
space into parking, formalize parking along Aberdeen
Drive with regulation signage and striping
Add backstop at northeast corner of Stadium Field to
add additional diamond field activities/space
Hillcrest Circle Park Mini-Park Replace playground, incorporate the topography for play elements
Kiwanis Building
(Burton Park)
Facility Construct new community building or facility in the same general footprint as the existing building
Laureola Park CommunityNeighborhood
Park
Replace Laureola building with new community
building through Master Plan process
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood Park
Mini-Park Terrace lower portion of the slope for additional seating/picnic area
Vista Park Neighborhood Park Replace picnic tables into a formalized, accessible picnic area with shade element
Add crosswalk across Crestview Drive to North
Crestview Park
Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables, trash
cans, sign, benches, fences)
Add a play structure on site
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 213
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 15 PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
Youth Center Facility Install doors at program rooms adjacent to the Les Mundell Picnic Grove to facilitate indoor-outdoor
connection
Redesign the Les Mundell Picnic Grove into an
“outdoor living room” with seating and lounging
opportunities, can include outdoor games
Renovate the restrooms to address deficiencies and
provide accessible clearance at all fixtures and new,
easy to clean finishes
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 214
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 16 Table 5. Long-Term Improvements (10+ Years)

PARK NAME CLASSIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS
Adult Community
Center
Facility Building electrification: as building systems and appliances need replacement, consider all-electric units where feasible Arguello Park Community Park Replace playground (consider a themed or adventure course)
Burton Park Community Park Replace playgrounds to be fully inclusive; consider themed play design
Replace water circulation for water play element to meet current code requirements
Cedar Street Park Mini-Park Consider restroom facilities on site City Hall Dog
Park
Special Use Park Consider repurposing dog park into a civic park if a dog park is sited elsewhere
Crestview Park Neighborhood
Park
Replace playground, consider themed/adventure play
expansion
Highlands Park Community Park Replace playground after structures are 20 years old Kiwanis Building
(Burton Park)
Facility Consider site for new community and/or aquatic facility Laureola Park Community
ParkFacility
Replace water circulation for water play element to meet current code requirements
Youth Center Facility Building electrification: as building systems and appliances need replacement, consider all-electric units that are
appropriately sized to meet building demand
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 215
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 17 3.4.1 No Improvements Proposed
There are several parks and facilities which are included in the Plan but have no actions proposed as part of the Plan. Parks with no action items include:
• Chilton Park (recently improved)
• Frank D. Harrington Park (included in the Downtown Specific Plan) • North Crestview Park (separate Master Plan process)
• Rosek Park (no improvements needed)

3.4.2 Short-Term Improvements
Short-term improvements are planned to be initiated or fully implemented within five years of adoption of the Plan.

SIGNAGE
Multiple types of new signage or modification to
existing signs, including trail wayfinding, regulatory
signage, and interpretive, are proposed as part of
the Project. Arguello Park, Big Canyon Park, Burton
Park and Eaton Park are City parks and open spaces
with miles of trails. The Plan calls for wayfinding
signage on trails, which would likely consist of a post and a metal sign or a wooden trail marker post
displaying trail information. Similar wayfinding is
present in other parks and open spaces, as depicted
in Figure 4. Trailhead kiosks would be installed at
park entry points at Arguello Park and display trail
system maps and other relevant information. San
Carlos Avenue Park, Heather Dog Exercise Area,
Burton Park, and Crestview Park would receive new
standard City park entrance signs.

Regulatory signage would provide information
regarding allowable uses, such as hiking or biking,
and park rules. Signage at Vista Park would be
consolidated along with the addition of signage
prohibiting bikes on Arguello Park trails. Interpretive signage would be installed or updated at Arguello
Park, Big Canyon Park, and Vista Park.

PARK AMENITIES
Park amenities would be replaced or relocated in several parks. A shade structure is proposed for the bleachers at Crestview Park and Laureola Park. The shade structure may consist of traditional framed construction, similar to pergolas or gazebos, or may be developed with steel posts with shade sails. Picnic tables or benches would be added or relocated in Arguello Park, Big Canyon Park, City Hall Dog Park, and Highlands Park. The picnic area near Stadium Field in Highlands Park would be replaced with a formalized and reservable picnic area that includes at Figure 4. Wayfinding sign in Big Canyon Park
4 9
s eeeer so y
ca
""H IB
A 2
1 r Mlaeizsi
foe - $ 3 Ml
to.
mm, <
8*.

Ill 3
aorig
-
(.
—eld ses
' —
eeean. : wos S.s ■ - ve

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 216
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 18 least one table and a path that meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards. Picnic tables at the Arguello Park snack shack would be replaced with ADA accessible tables. Fencing, picnic tables, trash cans, and benches at San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park would be replaced. The sand boxes at Burton Park and Crestview Park will be removed and the area it occupied would be converted to play area. Playground structures at San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park would also be replaced with similar structures and areas surrounding play structures would be resurfaced with pour-in-place rubber. New dog agility features would be installed at City Hall Dog Park. The City would install weather-resistant surfacing near the concrete cornhole boards at Burton Park.

A new bike pump track is proposed for Arguello Park. The pump track would be located on the already flat section of the site near the intersection of Dartmouth Avenue and Northam Avenue.

The pump track would include obstacles, like rollers, banked turns, and jumps, as well as fencing and seating areas. Additional design development is needed to determine more specific details of the pump track, including the type of all-weather surface.

The City would add a net with a minimum height of six feet at the Highlands Park soccer field to stop balls from leaving the field area.

SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Approximately 3,500 square feet of decomposed granite pathway would be replaced by allweather surface walkway at San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park through the removal of existing surface material, path edging, and any drainage, then preparation of concrete, asphalt or a similar impermeable walkway. Access to Crestview Park from Leslie Drive would be improved, a new fence installed between the field and parking lot, and the walking path will be resurfaced with approximately 2,500 sq. ft. of an all-weather resilient surface. The City would replace fencing with a similar type of fence at San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park and improve visibility and access into the site at Heather Dog Exercise Area and Laureola Park.

The concert lawn at Burton Park would be replaced by a picnic area with ADA-accessible pathways and at least one ADA-accessible picnic table. This modification would entail approximately 1,500 square feet of new surfacing.

The entirety of or portions of the fire road in Eaton Park, consisting of the Hawk Hill and Eaton trails, would be improved for ingress and egress and erosion management. The existing trails would need to be regraded, compacted, and have subgrade materials installed prior to paving.

Additional concept design and engineering consideration would be undertaken prior to implementation

ATHLETIC AND FITNESS FACILITIES
Batting cages would be resurfaced with padded artificial turf in Arguello Park and Highlands Park. The tennis and pickleball courts would be resurfaced and restriped in Highland Park to convert two tennis courts that are also used for pickleball into up to six permanent pickleball courts. Vista Park is proposed to include fitness stations including equipment such as wood log steps and pull up bars.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 217
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 19 UTILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Drainage would be improved on the concert lawn and the diamond fields at Burton Park.

Drinking fountains would be replaced at San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park and a new water fountain would be added to Vista Park and Heather Dog Exercise Area by extending domestic water from the street into the park.

LANDSCAPE
City-wide tree maintenance program recommendations to be determined by a city contracted arborist in the future, such as removing decaying trees, would be implemented at Cedar Street Park and Arguello Park. Preparation of a tree succession plan would identify the future maintenance and planting needs for the mature trees at Burton Park. Replanting and enhancement of landscaping at Hillcrest Circle Park, San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park and Heather Dog Exercise Area are proposed. New trees would be planted at Crestview Park.

VISTA POINTS
The proposed vista point in Big Canyon Park would be at the end of the Oak Meadow Trail, which is an out-and-back trail. The vista would look east towards the bay and provide a view down Brittan Avenue. The Big Canyon Park vista point would require minor grading, estimated at totaling less than ten cubic yards, with off haul avoided by repurposing the soil into trail improvements on the site.

On the northern edge of the open space at Arguello Park is an existing graded area at the highest point in the park, which features picnic tables and boulders. Creation of a vista point with interpretive signage is proposed.

BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
To improve the functionality of the Youth Center and the Parkview Room of the Adult Community Center, installation of a large screen and improved audio-visual equipment, such as projectors and speakers, is proposed. Acoustic management measures, such as acoustic curtains or dividers, would be installed between the “Zen Den” room and the game room in the Youth Center. The Adult Community Center kitchen would be renovated to replace appliances and flooring, create an accessible pantry space, and improve circulation in the kitchen. The City would replace the HVAC system of the Youth Center.

The San Carlos library has a divisible community room that may be reserved for different events or meetings. The City would provide interactive wayfinding to direct visitors to their destinations within the library. Additional storage for tables and chairs when they are not in use would be added to the San Carlos Library community room to provide a more flexible use of space.

RECLASSIFICATION AND RENAMING
The City proposes taking administrative action on three parks as part of the Parks Master Plan.

The City proposes reclassifying Laureola Park from a neighborhood park to a community park in recognition that it serves a broader function for residents and visitors outside of its immediate vicinity through programming and the amenities available there. Additionally, the Heather Dog Exercise Area and San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park would both be renamed as part of implementation of the Project.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 218
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 20 AESTHETICS
The City would paint a mural on the bleacher steps at Stadium Field in Highlands Park.

LAUREOLA PARK MASTER PLAN
It is recommended develop a master plan for Laureola Park and involve community participation in the development of future improvements at the site. The Laureola Park Master Plan would consider use of the Laureola Building, park expansion needs, site access considerations, and park amenities. The details of the proposed park facilities would be further developed through the Master Planning process and would undergo a separate environmental review under CEQA.

3.4.3 Mid-Term Improvements
Mid-term projects are to be initiated or implemented within 5 to 10 years of adoption of the Plan and are listed below by park or facility. Several of these improvements are discussed at a more conceptual level in this IS/MND because project-level details are not yet finalized and additional CEQA consideration may be required prior to implementation.

PARK AMENITIES
Park amenities, including benches and rest areas, at Cedar Street Park would be replaced. Shade structures would be installed over the existing bleachers at Arguello Park. Improvements are proposed to provide additional outdoor seating and paved surfacing in Les Mundell Grove at Burton Park to extend the usable space outside of the Youth Center. Additional or replacement of park amenities, like benches, picnic tables, and dog waste stations, shade structures, would take place at Heather Dog Exercise Area and Vista Park. The off-leash dog area at Heather Dog Exercise Area would be expanded.

The Plan would include replacing existing playground equipment with new playground equipment and resurfaced play areas at Cedar Street Park, Hillcrest Circle Park, and Crestview Park. A new play structure would be added to Vista Park. The sand box at Cedar Street Park would be removed and repurposed for play space. Fitness station elements are proposed along the existing walking path at Highlands Park.

A backstop would be added at the northeast corner of Stadium Field at Highlands Park to add additional recreation space.

A mini ropes course is proposed east of the Wellington Avenue parking lot at Arguello Park. The ropes course would provide low features for climbing to promote exploratory play and a more challenging experience for young kids. The ropes course design will require further detailed design development.

SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the Arguello Park sunken picnic area adjacent to the sports field would be improved to enhance accessibility, such as adding ramp access into the area and updating paving. Existing walkways at Cedar Street Park (approximately 4,000 square feet of repaving; approximately 1,000 square feet of dc) Arguello Park (approximately 8,000 square feet), Highlands Park, and Heather Dog Exercise Area would be replaced with all-weather surface pathways. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 219
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 21 Improvements for the Burton Park entry on Woodland Avenue and Brittan Avenue and Highlands Park entrance on Elston Court are proposed. Improvements may include paving with all-weather surfacing, signage, landscaping, and enhancing pedestrian connections to the site.

The staircase at Heather Dog Exercise Area would be removed and replaced with accessible ramp access. Additional design and engineering details would need to be prepared to ensure ADA-compliant slopes and features.

A pedestrian connection across Crestview Drive from Vista Park to North Crestview Park is proposed. This would be a non-signalized standard painted striped crosswalk. The lower portion of the slope along the west side of San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park would be terraced to create amphitheatre-style seating or another function determined during the design phase. The terracing would require movement of an estimated 10 cubic yards of earth.

The City would convert available unused landscape areas and space along Aberdeen Drive at Highlands Park to approximately two to five paved and striped parking stalls. The new parking spaces would not require new curb cuts or major changes to traffic patterns.

UTILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
The Plan proposes extending existing electrical utilities to Crestview Park to add motionactivated safety lighting through installation of five to 10 lighting bollards in the Crestview Drive parking area. A drinking fountain would be added to Heather Dog Exercise Area. The City would install new irrigation, improve drainage, and replace grass turf at Stadium Field at Highlands Park.

A new restroom is proposed at the Brittan Avenue entrance of Big Canyon Park to provide flush toilets, hand washing sinks, and drinking fountain utilities. The restroom would also have electricity for lights and an AED device installed.

LANDSCAPING
The City would add a floodplain detention basin and implement the Native Plant Pilot Program, both recommended in the 2025 Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan, in Big Canyon Park. Restoration planting would be conducted in the open space areas of Heather Dog Exercise Area.

BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
The restrooms at the Youth Center would be renovated to provide accessible clearances to all fixtures and replaces finishes with new materials. Exterior doors will be installed at the Youth Center to create outdoors access to the adjacent Les Mundell Grove. The Les Mundell Grove would be redesigned into a patio setting and would incorporate more seating.

The Kiwanis Building at Burton Park may be replaced with a new community building depending on the outcome of a Master Plan process. A new community and aquatic facility was deemed a high priority though community outreach and City Council discussions. The location, size and scope of this new facility is ongoing review under a separate process.

The Laureola Building at Laureola Park may be replaced with a new community building depending on the outcome of a Master Plan process.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 220
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 22 TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
Incorporation of water management design features into natural surface trails at Eaton Park is proposed to manage surface water runoff and reduce soil erosion on the trails. Water bars on the steeply sloped trail segment near the Eaton Avenue entrance would be installed to slow and divert water from the trail tread. Rolling dips are proposed on the Eaton Trail between Vista Trail and Summit Trail as well as a nearby portion of Vista Trail and the upper Summit Trail to improve drainage and reduce erosion. There are several social trails created by trail users on the north side of Eaton Park, which are proposed for decommissioning to reduce erosion impacts and improve trail user safety.

Most trails in Arguello Park were not formally created using current trail standards and there are many segments of social trails contributing to erosion on the site. The Plan would formalize approximately 1.12 miles of existing trails by improving the grading, surface material, and drainage. Approximately 0.42 miles of trails would be permanently decommissioned by removing trail features, restoring the landscape, and preventing continued use either through signage or fencing. To accommodate the mini ropes course and address erosion impacts, 0.2 miles of trail would be realigned through either partial or complete reconstruction but would remain in the same general area to provide important connections to other trails.

The City would work with a developer of a nearby residential project to establish a paved multiuse pathway along Sheldon Avenue. The City would add Arguello Park to an existing trail maintenance contract that would result in ongoing maintenance activities, such as minor grading, vegetation management, and hazard removal.

The City would construct an ADA-accessible trail segment in Big Canyon Park as proposed in the Hillside Trails Plan (2012). The ADA-accessible trail would be an out-and-back trail that extends approximately 360 feet from Brittan Avenue into the canyon. Construction of the trail would require grading and paving a portion of naturally surfaced area with durable surfacing.

NORTH CRESTVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN
A Master Plan process is currently underway at North Crestview Park to develop a park space that meets the needs of the community. The ultimate proposed elements of the master plan would be evaluated through a separate CEQA process.

EROSION CONTROL
Measures to manage erosion and improve slope stability on the steep, open slopes in Big Canyon Park between Melendy Drive, Drake Court, and Brittan Avenue would be evaluated to identify specific intervention sites as well as the appropriateness and feasibility of different measures at the sites.

3.4.4 Long-Term Improvements
Long-term improvements are anticipated to take place in 10 years or longer. These improvements are generally larger in scale and less well-defined, so discussion will be at a conceptual level and additional planning and design will be necessary prior to implementation. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 221
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 23 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
The Plan proposes electrification of the Adult Community Center and Youth Center as part of the long-term improvements. Building electrification would entail services upgrades to accommodate the additional energy load, rewiring, and replacement of any natural gas appliances as needed.

PARK AMENITIES
The Plan would replace aging existing playground equipment with new playground equipment and resurfaced play areas at Arguello Park, Burton Park, Crestview Park, and Highlands Park.

The construction of a restroom facility at Cedar Street Park with flush toilets, sinks, and electricity for lighting will be evaluated.

CIVIC PLAZA
A portion of the City Hall property at the corner of Elm Street and San Carlos Avenue is currently used as a public dog park and may be converted into a civic park if a dog park is sited elsewhere. The plaza would feature landscaping, seating, and paved elements. Additional design consideration will be undertaken at time of construction.

WATER PLAY RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS
The current drainage systems at the existing water play areas at Laureola Park and Burton Park would be retrofitted to utilize recirculated water by introducing a surge basin or treatment tank to collect and store recirculated water and meet current code requirements per California Water Code (WAT §13551).

3.5 General Plan Amendments
The Project includes updates to the City’s General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and Environmental Management Element to ensure consistency with the Plan and bring them into compliance with State law. Senate Bill (SB) 1425 was passed in 2022 and requires cities and counties to update their General Plan Open Space Elements to address equitable access to open space, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities. Assembly Bill (AB) 1889 was passed in 2024 and requires cities and counties to address wildlife and habitat connectivity within their General Plan. These requirements were addressed by the inclusion of the following policies into the San Carlos General Plan:
• Policy EM-1.5: Identify, conserve, and enhance wildlife connectivity corridors. Where feasible, protect continuous habitat linkages and remove barriers to wildlife movement in coordination with regional habitat plans (per AB 1889 requirements).

This includes considering wildlife crossings or buffer zones in project designs near identified corridors.
• Policy EM-1.6: Conduct a Habitat Connectivity Study to map wildlife movement routes and ecological connectivity areas within San Carlos and the region. Use this study to guide land use planning, open space acquisitions, and infrastructure designs that protect or enhance these corridors (in compliance with AB 1889). • Policy EM-4.2: Review new development proposal for opportunities to create open space.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 222
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 24 • Policy EM-4.8: Ensure equitable access to open space for all community members by prioritizing new parks, green spaces, and open-space improvements in park-poor or underserved neighborhoods (pursuant to SB 1425’s equity requirements). • Policy EM-4.9: Leverage open spaces to enhance climate resilience and ecosystem health. Protect and expand natural areas that buffer climate impacts (e.g. wetlands for flood control, urban forests for cooling) and pursue rewilding efforts (native habitat restoration and species support) to preserve and enhance biodiversity (consistent with SB 1425).
• Action PR-1.12: Pursue designation of City-owned Open Space as Priority Conservation Areas.
• Action PR-1.13: Strive to provide a minimum of 1 mile of trail for every 1,000 residents.
• Action PR-1.14: Pursue Joint Use Agreements and partnerships with local and regional agencies to expand recreation opportunities and shared use facilities. • Action PR-2.11: Conduct an equity analysis as part of each update of the Parks and Recreation Element to identify park and open space access needs and guide park and recreation facility improvement priorities.
• Action PR-2.12: Enhance access to parks and recreation facilities through safe streets improvements, pedestrian crossings, and accessibility measures. • Policy PR-3.7: Prioritize multi-generational spaces and programs in both established and future parks and facilities.
• Action PR-3.3: Explore opportunities to provide a multi-generational recreation facility in San Carlos.
• Action PR-3.4: promote the design of multi-use recreational spaces and facilities to expand recreation opportunities.
• Action PR-3.5: Consider property acquisitions adjacent to Laureola Park for expansion of park space.
• Policy PR-4.12: Continue to use electric powered landscape maintenance equipment when feasible (unless backup equipment is required).
• Policy PR-4.13: Reference the San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan to ensure park and recreation improvements align with City climate goals. • Action PR-4.8: Develop and implement a Tree Mitigation Plan, in coordination with a certified arborist, to ensure pedestrian safety and the long-term health of park trees. • Action PR-4.9: Support the use of digital tools, such as QR codes linked to an app or website, to educate visitors about native and existing flora within open space areas. • Action PR-5.1: Engage community members of all ages, abilities, and social groups in future park and recreation facility master planning projects.

The Parks and Recreation Element was also updated to reflect current park conditions and to reclassify Laureola Park from a Neighborhood Park to a Community Park. The updates also ensure consistency with the Parks Master Plan and the City’s 2012 Hillside Trails Plan (City of San Carlos 2012).
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 223
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 25 3.6 Project Construction
Construction of individual projects under the Plan would be undertaken in a phased approach with Plan elements identified for the short term, mid-term, and long term. Most improvements included in the Plan would qualify for Categorical Exemptions under CEQA; however, some projects may not qualify for an exemption and will need to be further analyzed at a project-level prior to implementation. Actions undertaken as part of Plan implementation at the following sites may require further CEQA review due to the potential impacts to air quality, noise, geology, water quality, or other impacts:
• Kiwanis Building
• Laureola Building
• Arguello Park
• Big Canyon Park
• Eaton Park
• City Hall Dog Park
Across all phases of the Plan, construction work is anticipated to occur for eight hours per day, five days per week. The San Carlos Municipal Code limits construction activities to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

No construction noise-related activities are permitted on Sundays and holidays. All gasolinepowered construction equipment shall be equipped with an operating muffler or baffling system as originally provided by the manufacturer, and no modification to these systems is permitted.

The Building Official shall have the authority to grant exceptions to construction noise-related activities. Staging areas for construction materials and equipment would be determined at a later time by the construction contractor or City for each work site. Staging of materials and equipment would occur on developed or disturbed areas and would not be located in any sensitive habitat areas. Regional access to the parks sites is provided via US-101 and US-280.

Detailed information regarding construction duration, staging, access, and equipment is provided for each activity in the Appendix A. Construction Details.

3.7 Plan Operation
Table 6 summarizes potential changes to use of parks, open spaces, and facilities based on the improvements included in the Parks Master Plan. “No change” means that the park or facility improvement is not likely to affect vehicle miles travelled, air quality, noise, water supply and distribution, energy consumption, or change land uses as part of ongoing operation. “Increased use” means operation of that park or facility improvement may have an impact on those previously listed environmental considerations; however, the degree of that impact and the appropriate mitigation measures are determined through project-level analysis.

Table 6. Potential Changes to Park Operations

PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Adult Community
Center
Renovate the kitchen to address deficiencies
and provide: X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 224
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 26 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
- Improved circulation and better use of serving
space
- New appliances
- New flooring and other finishes
- Accessible pantry space
Building electrification: as building systems and
appliances need replacement, consider allelectric units where feasibleX Arguello Park
Replace batting cage surfacing X
Add shade structure over picnic area and
bleachers X
Implement citywide tree maintenance program
recommendations X
Create an overlook at "the rocks" with
interpretive signage X
Add wayfinding signage and trailhead kiosk for
open space trails X
Add and relocate picnic tables/bench seating in
open space area
X
Install park rules signage (including no biking) X
Add accessible picnic tables to snack shack
picnic area X
Replace playground (consider a themed or
adventure course) X
Improve access to sunken picnic area X
Site pump track at bend of Dartmouth/Northam
Avenue; considering fencing to block cyclists
from entering trail network
X
Construct mini ropes course, embankment slide,
and zip line near Wellington Ave parking and
implement erosion control measures
X
Pave the fire road along Sheldon Avenue to
provide a multi-use maintenance and walking
path/emergency access path (required by
adjacent private development)
X
Formalize existing trails (proper grading,
surfacing, drainage), consider realigning some
trail segments, and decommission others
realigning some trail segments, and
decommission others
X
Add park trails to existing trails maintenance
contract
X
Repave pathways with all-weather surface or
concrete
X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 225
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 27 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Big Canyon Park
Provide a vista point at end of Oak Meadow
Trail (includes view area delineation with
wooden fencing, bench, interpretive signage,
signage indicating “area closed” beyond
fencing)
X
Add wayfinding signage throughout the park X
Add or restore park benches and picnic tables X
Expand and enhance trail system per Hillside
Trails Master Plan, including designated ADA
trail at Brittan Avenue
X
Install a restroom facility at the Brittan Avenue
entrance adjacent to the street and labyrinth,
include an AED device to the structure and
include wayfinding signage across the street at
Eaton Park entrance
X
Incorporate erosion control measures on open
slopes to enhance slope stability between
Melendy Drive and Drake Court
X
Implement flora/fauna app/website with QR
code on signage at the site X
Implement Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan Native
Plant Pilot Program X
Consider integrating a floodplain detention
basin as noted in the Pulgas Creek Watershed
Plan
X
Burton Park
Add wayfinding signage at the Woodland
Avenue park entrance X
Improve lawn drainage at concert lawn X
Improve field drainage at diamond fields X
Prepare a tree succession plan in and
implement citywide tree maintenance program
recommendations
X
Add formalized reservable picnic area with
accessible path and one ADA table (minimum)
to concert lawn
X
Remove sandbox area from play area and
repurpose with usable play area X
Add improved access at Woodland Avenue and
Brittan Avenue corner X
Replace water circulation for water play
element to meet current code requirements X
Replace playgrounds to be fully inclusive;
consider themed play design X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 226
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 28 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Install weather-resistant material surfacing
next to concrete cornhole boards X
Kiwanis building to be replaced with new
community building through master plan
process
X
Cedar Street Park
Implement citywide tree maintenance program
recommendations X
Renovate and expand play area with new
equipment, inclusive design (includes
resurfacing to poured-in-place rubber), and
remove the sandbox and repurpose for usable
play space; consider utilizing the site's existing
topography to integrate play elements;
Consider community outreach during the design
process
X
Replace pathways with all-weather resilient
surfacing X
Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables,
drinking fountain, trash receptacles, park sign,
benches)
X
Consider restroom facilities on site X
City Hall Dog Park
Enhance park landscape and dog agility
amenities, consider theme elements or design X
Replace picnic tables with benches and
grouped seating areas X
Improve drainage at drinking fountain X
Consider repurposing dog park into a civic park
if a dog park is sited elsewhere X
Crestview Park
Add permanent fencing between field and
parking lot X
Improve pedestrian entrance at Leslie Drive
and perimeter trail in open space area (allweather surfacing, signage)X Plant two new trees (between parking lot and
field) X
Replace playground, consider
themed/adventure play expansion X
Remove and repurpose sandbox to active play
space
X
Add shade structure over bleachers X
Add standard safety lighting (motion detected,
low brightness levels, consider solar powered) X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 227
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 29 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Eaton Park
Introduce water bars along Hawk Hill trail (if
not being paved) X
Add rolling dips on Eaton Trail between Vista
Trail and Summit Trail and nearby portion of
Vista Trail (where moderate erosion is
occurring)
X
Improve wayfinding signage X
Decommission all informal trails X
Add rolling dips on upper section of Summit
Trail X
Add water bars near Eaton Ave entrance to
reduce erosion X
Update trails map to show all existing bench
locations X
Improve fire road with durable surface and
eliminate trail head erosion issues for
maintained vehicular access
X
Heather Dog
Exercise Area
Rename park and add city standard park sign X
Improve visibility and access into the site X
Expand usable dog park area X
Repave pathways with all-weather resilient
surfacing X
Replace staircase with accessible ramp access X
Maintain and enhance landscaping within park
site, install irrigation system X
Add and replace standard amenities (drinking
fountain, benches/picnic table, dog waste
station, agility course)
X
Add domestic water source (for drinking
fountain) X
Add rest areas and restoration planting along
trail/open space area X
Install new fence to separate city property from
school property X
Highlands Park
Replace picnic area by Stadium Field into
formalized reservable picnic area with
accessible path and one (1) ADA table
(minimum)
X
Replace aging benches X
Paint a community mural along the bleacher
steps at Stadium Field X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 228
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 30 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Formalize park entry at northeast residential
street
X
Replace batting cage surfacing X
Restripe the two dual-court tennis/pickleball
courts to up to six permanent pickleball courts X
Improve field drainage and replace grass turf
at Stadium Field X
Add fitness station elements along walking
path X
Add net at Highlands Field for soccer (6-foot
net minimum X
Repave pathways around Stadium Field with
all-weather resilient surfacing X
Add parking stalls by converting available
unused space into parking, formalize parking
along Aberdeen Drive with regulation signage
and striping
X
Add backstop at northeast corner of Stadium
Field to add additional diamond field
activities/space
X
Replace playground after structures are 20
years old X
Hillcrest Circle
Park
Replant landscaping (shrubs, groundcover, resod lawn, shade trees) X Improve pedestrian access with informational
access signage X
Replace playground, incorporate the
topography for play elements X
Kiwanis Building
(Burton Park)
Consider a shortened, modified lease that
aligns with the anticipated schedule for
potential building improvements. Determine
whether the building will be renovated for
recreation programming (general community
use or event rental space), replaced with a new
facility, or designated as the future site of a
new community and aquatic center.

Upon expiration of shortened lease, cease lease
agreement and return building to City operation
for greater community use.

X
Construct new community building or facility in
the same general footprint as the existing
building
X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 229
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 31 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Consider site for new community and/or
aquatic facility X
Laureola Park
Replace water circulation for water play
element to meet code requirements X
Add shade structure over bleachers X
Reclassify park to a Community Park X
Prepare a park master plan with participation
of the community for the Laureola Park building
and park site; Consider purchasing adjacent
Sequoia Union High School parcel to expand
park site and improve access from El Camino
Real.

X
Improve visibility and access from Old County
Road and Holly Street X
Laureola building to be replaced with new
community building through Master Plan
process
X
Library
Community Room
Provide improved storage for tables and chairs
when not in use X
Provide interactive wayfinding signage to direct
visitors on the first and second floors in
coordination with the library
X
Replace flooring X
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood
Park
Rename park and update park sign X
Replace playground, make inclusive (includes
resurfacing to pour-in-place rubber surfacing) X
Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables,
drinking fountain, trash cans, sign, benches) X
Remove overgrown shrubs at the entrance and
sidewalk to improve visibility and enhance park
entrance
X
Replace fencing X
Repave pathways with all-weather resilient
surfacing X
Terrace lower portion of the slope for
additional seating/picnic area X
Vista Park Update floral and plant signage X
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 230
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 32 PARK NAME IMPROVEMENT NO
CHANGE

INCREASED
USE
Add natural theme fitness station elements X
Consolidate regulation signage X
Add interpretive signage X
Add drinking fountain with domestic water
source
X
Replace picnic tables into a formalized,
accessible picnic area with shade element X
Add crosswalk across Crestview Drive to North
Crestview Park X
Add a play structure on site X
Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables,
trash cans, sign, benches, fences)
X
Youth Center
Install large digital displays and new AV
equipment in all program rooms X
Replace HVAC system X
Improve the acoustical separation of the Zen
Den from the adjacent Game Room X
Install doors at program rooms adjacent to the
Les Mundell Picnic Grove to facilitate indooroutdoor connectionX Redesign the Les Mundell Picnic Grove into an
“outdoor living room” with seating and
lounging opportunities, can include outdoor
games
Renovate the restrooms to address deficiencies
and provide accessible clearance at all fixtures
and new, easy to clean finishes
X
Building electrification: as building systems and
appliances need replacement, consider allelectric units that are appropriately sized to meet building demand
X

3.8 Plan-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits
The information contained in this Programmatic IS/MND will be used by the City of San Carlos (lead agency) as it considers whether to approve the proposed Plan. If the Plan is approved, the Programmatic IS/MND would be used by the City and responsible and trustee agencies in conjunction with various approvals and permits. These actions may include, but may not be limited to, the following approvals by the agencies listed below. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 231
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 33 3.8.1 City of San Carlos
• Plan approval by the City Council
• Grading Permit
• Building Permit

3.8.2 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board • Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] C.6)
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 232
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 34 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Plan, involving at least one impact that is potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology and Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.1 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Plan COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the Plan could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Plan have been made by or agreed to by the Plan proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the Plan MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the Plan MAY have a “Potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the Plan could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Plan, nothing further is required.
_________________________________________ __________________ Signature Date
Name and Title: Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner
(.

X
X
□
X
□
□
X
□
□
X
□
□
□
□
X
□
X
X
X
□
X

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 233
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 35 4.2 Initial Study Checklist
This section describes the existing environmental conditions in and near the Plan Area and evaluates environmental impacts associated with the proposed Plan. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), was used to identify environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed Plan is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The cited sources are identified at the end of this section.

Each of the environmental categories was fully evaluated, and one of the following four determinations was made for each checklist question:
“No Impact” means that no impact to the resource would occur as a result of implementing the Plan.
“Less than Significant Impact” means that implementation of the Plan would not result in a substantial and/or adverse change to the resource, and no mitigation measures are required.
“Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” means that the incorporation of one or more mitigation measures is necessary to reduce the impact from potentially significant to less than significant.
“Potentially Significant Impact” means that there is either substantial evidence that a Plan-related effect may be significant, or, due to a lack of existing information, could have the potential to be significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 234
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 36 4.2.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Plan Area is located in the City of San Carlos on the San Francisco Peninsula, situated between the cities of Belmont and Redwood City. San Carlos has varied topography ranging from relatively flat areas to hilly terrain in western portions of the City. The City is predominantly developed and characterized by single-family residences, multi-family developments, a downtown area, and residential and commercial uses on the east side. The Plan Area includes 17 City-owned parks and open spaces that are scattered throughout San Carlos, providing opportunities for passive and active recreation.

Parks included in the Plan Area vary in size, character, and the type of amenities offered.

Arguello Park is the City’s largest developed park, with a variety of amenities including a baseball diamond, soccer fields, a gated playground, two picnic areas, grilling equipment, open space and walking trails. Other developed park sites, such as Burton Park, Crestview Park, Highlands Park, and Laureola Park include amenities such as athletic fields, tennis courts, play structures, and basketball courts. Some small parks, such as Rosek Park and Frank D. Harrington Park, offer benches and tables to enjoy a quiet space outside. Special use parks, such as City Hall Dog Park and Heather Dog Exercise Area, offer dedicated off-leash dog exercise areas.

Larger parks offer vast open space areas with trails for hiking, such as Eaton Park and Big Canyon Park. As discussed further in Section 4.2.4, Biological Resources, some of the City’s parks are fully developed with paved amenities or ornamental vegetation, and others contain a mix of native vegetation communities with some eucalyptus groves scattered throughout. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 235
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 37 REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Carlos General Plan
The City’s General Plan identifies County scenic highways, including Edgewood Road and Cañada Road, as well as the following City scenic roads:
• Alameda de Las Pulgas
• San Carlos Avenue
• Brittan Avenue
• Club Drive
• Crestview Drive
• El Camino Real
• Holly Street
The City’s General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) Element contains the following policies related to aesthetics:
• Policy CSH-8.1: The City shall continue its program of protecting and enhancing local scenic roads through right-of-way protection and appropriate architectural and landscape controls and requirements.
• Policy CSH-8.2: The City shall encourage the planting of native trees and shrubs along local scenic roads, where practical.
• Policy CSH-8.3: The City shall maintain local scenic roads in safe conditions. • Policy CSH-8.4: The City shall continue architectural and site plan review of all signage, structures and site developments proposed in the scenic corridors to ensure appropriateness of design and materials and proper placement of structures and vegetative screening where necessary.
• Policy CSH-8.5: Traffic mitigation funds should be available to provide aesthetic enhancement to the city’s Scenic Highways and Roads.

PARKS MASTER PLAN GUIDELINES
• Design facilities using materials and architectural elements that respond to local context, reinforcing a sense of place and connection to San Carlos’ character and landscape.
• Create a distinct identify by incorporating the physical, social, cultural, and natural features of the site and surrounding neighborhood into its design. • Design parks to relate to adjacent streets, buildings, and land uses, reinforcing connections to the surrounding community and activating edges. • Capitalize on views into, through, and from parks, framing views of park features and preserving vistas of surrounding landmarks and natural elements. • Use durable, high-quality materials that age well and are appropriate for the San Franciso Bay Peninsula climate, with consideration for long-term maintenance. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 236
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 38 • Ensure site furnishings, including benches, trash and recycle receptacles, fencing, and similar elements follow a unified design vocabulary throughout the park system. • Use decorative or integrated treatments for standard amenities, such as newspaper stands, trash enclosures, and utility elements, where appropriate.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-Significant Impact
The construction of individual projects under the proposed Plan may have a temporary adverse effect on views from locally designated scenic corridors and roadways in the City due to the presence of construction equipment or removal of vegetation. These temporary impacts would not be considered a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas in San Carlos. After construction, new and improved parks and associated landscaping would generally enhance the foreground of scenic views from scenic corridors in the Plan Area, which is a beneficial impact to scenic vistas.

The majority of proposed improvements would not involve new structures which would impact views from scenic vistas. As included in the Parks Master Plan Guidelines, any new structures such as playground equipment, restrooms, or building improvements would be designed using materials and architectural elements that respond to local context and incorporate the natural features of a site whenever feasible. In addition, durable, high-quality materials that are appropriate for the regional setting would be used, and decorative or integrated treatments for standard amenities would be incorporated as appropriate. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
One officially designated state scenic highway, Interstate 280 (I-280), runs along the western edge of the City (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2026). The closest park to I-280 is North Crestview Park, approximately 0.25 miles east of the interstate. Due to local topography, vegetation, and built structures, no portion of the Plan Area is visible from I-280.

Therefore, the proposed Plan would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The Plan Area is located in an urbanized area in the City of San Carlos. The City’s General Plan contains policies pertaining to aesthetics and scenic quality which are described in the Regulatory Setting section above. Specifically, Policy CSH-8.1 directs the City to continue its program of protecting and enhancing local scenic roads through right-of-way protection and appropriate architectural and landscape controls and requirements. Further, Policy CSH-8.2 directs the City to encourage the planting of native trees and shrubs along local scenic roads, (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 237
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 39 where practicable. As described above under Threshold b), some parks within the Plan Area may be visible from local scenic roads; however, any impacts would be temporary in nature and would not be substantial. The Plan would not include any improvements or landscaping within scenic roadway corridors that would conflict with these policies of the General Plan.

General Plan Policy CSH-8.4 directs the City to continue architectural and site plan review of all signage, structures and site developments proposed in the scenic corridors to ensure appropriateness of design and materials and proper placement of structures and vegetative screening where necessary. Future projects under the proposed Plan would be required to undergo architectural and site plan review by the City, which would ensure compliance with this policy. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The impact would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Improvements under the proposed Plan would consist of rehabilitation or replacement of existing facilities such as signage, picnic tables and benches, turf, and playground equipment; improvements to trails and walkways; and irrigation and landscaping improvements. Generally, improvements to trails/walkways and irrigation and landscaping would not introduce any new sources of light or glare. However, the replacement of existing facilities or construction of new facilities such as shade structures and restrooms could result in substantial new sources of light or glare if reflective materials are used. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES-1 shall be implemented, which requires the use of non-reflective, low-glare materials and finishes for all new construction and improvements. Implementation of this measure would ensure that new development does not introduce substantial sources of glare or reflective surfaces that could adversely affect surrounding uses or visual character. With implementation of this measure, the proposed Plan would not result in a substantial source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure AES-1. Non-Reflective Materials
All new construction and improvements, including playground equipment, restroom facilities, lighting, fencing, irrigation appurtenances, and other site features, shall utilize non-reflective, low-glare materials and finishes to the maximum extent feasible. Exterior surfaces shall be finished with matte, textured, or earth-toned coatings, and highly reflective materials such as polished metals or mirrored surfaces shall be avoided.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 238
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 40 4.2.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Plan includes 17 parks and open space areas within the City of San Carlos. Thirteen of those sites are mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” three sites are mapped as “Other Land,” and one site is mapped as “Grazing Land” by the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) California Important Farmland Finder online mapping tool (CDOC 2026a). Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures and includes residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. Other Land is occupied by vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and includes brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing. Grazing Land is occupied by land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 239
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 41 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Willaimson Act contract? No Impact
No portion of the Plan Area is mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDOC 2026a). Therefore, the Plan would not impact any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Plan Area is zoned for park, open space, and public uses and are not under a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c, d) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The parks, open spaces, and facilities within the Plan Area are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land, Other Land, and Grazing Land by the CDOC. Parks, open spaces, and facilities within the Plan Area are zoned as Park (PK), Open Space (OS), or Public (P) with a General Plan land use designation of Park, Open Space, or Public and does not include any forestland or timberland.

The Plan would not convert any forest land to a non-forest use. No impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The Plan would not change the land use of any of the parks included in the Plan Area.

Additionally, there is no Farmland or forest land within the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area.

Therefore, the Plan would not cause any changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agriculture use or forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 240
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 42 4.2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is in non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) affecting a substantial
number of people?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Plan Area is located in San Carlos, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air District (BAAD) previously known as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or BAAQMD, is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. BAAD has published the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of the Project (BAAD 2022). The 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the most current air quality management plan developed and adopted by BAAD.

Ambient Air Quality and Climate
The Bay Area has a Mediterranean climate characterized by wet winters and dry summers.

During most summers, a high-pressure cell centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean results in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow that generally keeps storms from affecting the California coast. During the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens, resulting in increased precipitation and the occurrence of storms. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the Bay Area generally occur during inversions, when a surface layer of cooler air becomes trapped beneath a layer of warmer air. An inversion reduces the amount of vertical mixing and dilution of air pollutants in the cooler air near the surface.

Air Pollutants of Concern
The CARB and U.S. EPA focus on the following air pollutants as regional indicators of ambient air quality:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 241
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 43 • Ozone
• Coarse particulate matter (PM10)
• Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Carbon monoxide
• Sulfur dioxide
• Lead
Because these are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health based on extensive criteria documents, they are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” In the SFBAAB, the primary criteria air pollutants of concern are ground-level ozone formed through reactions of oxides of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG), PM10, and PM2.5. Regional air pollutants, such as ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, can be formed and/or transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source. The magnitude and location of specific health effects from exposure to increased ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations are the result of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout the SFBAAB, as opposed to a single project.

Localized air pollutants generally dissipate with distance from the emission source and can pose a health risk to nearby populations. Toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), are considered localized pollutants. PM2.5 is also considered a localized air pollutant, in addition to being considered a regional air pollutant. Air dispersion models can be used to reliably quantify the health risks to nearby receptors associated with emissions of localized air pollutants from an individual project.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State Regulations
The U.S. EPA is responsible for implementing the programs established under the Federal Clean Air Act, such as establishing and reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and judging the adequacy of State Implementation Plans to attain the NAAQS. A State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. If a state fails to enforce its implementation of approved regulations, or if the EPA determines that a State Implementation Plan is inadequate, the EPA is required to prepare and enforce a Federal Implementation Plan to promulgate comprehensive control measures for a given State Implementation Plan.

CARB is responsible for establishing and reviewing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), developing and managing the California State Implementation Plans, identifying TACs, and overseeing the activities of regional air quality management districts. In California, mobile emissions sources (e.g., construction equipment, trucks, and automobiles) are regulated by CARB and stationary emissions sources (e.g., industrial facilities) are regulated by the regional air quality management districts.

In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act, areas in California are classified as either in attainment, maintenance (i.e., former nonattainment), or nonattainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS for each criteria air pollutant, where attainment means the area is (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 242
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 44 meeting state or federal standards for a specific pollutant. To assess the regional attainment status, BAAD collects ambient air quality data from over 30 monitoring sites within the SFBAAB (BAAD 2017a). Based on current monitoring data, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10 (CAAQS only), and PM2.5, and is designated as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants. BAAD is primarily responsible for ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. BAAD fulfills this responsibility by adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, and monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions.

City of San Carlos General Plan
The City’s General Plan Environmental Management (EM) element contains the following policies and actions related to air quality:
• Policy EM-6.4: Implement BAAD guidelines that establish minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. Exceptions may be made for projects that do not meet the distance requirements but can be determined compatible with adjacent uses through a project-specific study that determines potential health risk. Mitigation measures shall be required to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.
• Policy EM-6.6: BAAD recommended measures to reduce PM10 and exhaust emissions associated with construction shall be applied to new development in San Carlos. • Action EM-6.1: Require review by appropriate agencies of development applications that may create potential air quality impacts to assure compliance with relevant regulations.

BAAD Screening Criteria
BAAD has established screening criteria to determine whether individual projects could result in potentially significant criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions, which are described in Section 4 of the BAAD 2022 CEQA Guidelines (BAAD 2022). Preliminary screening for construction and operational criteria provides lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project would result in the generation of criteria air pollutants or precursors that exceed BAAD thresholds of significance. If all screening criteria for criteria air pollutants and precursors are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency need not perform a detailed assessment of the project’s criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions.

Table 4-1 of the BAAD CEQA Guidelines contains single land use construction and operational criteria air pollutant and precursor screening levels for various land use categories. For operational emissions, it is assumed that projects would result in a less-than-significant impact related to criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions if: 1) the project size is at or below the operational screening level size for the applicable land use category (contained in Table 4-1 of the BAAD CEQA Guidelines); 2) operational activities would not include stationary engines and industrial sources subject to BAAD rules and regulations; and 3) operational activities would not overlap with construction activities. For construction emissions, it is assumed that projects would result in a less-than-significant impact related to criteria air pollutants and precursors if: 1) the project size is below the applicable screening level shown in Table 4-1; 2) all BAADrecommended BMPs are included in the project design and implemented during construction; 3) (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 243
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 45 construction-related activities would not overlap with operational activities; and 4) constructionrelated activities would not include demolition, simultaneous occurrence of two or more construction phases, extensive site preparation, extensive material transport, or stationary sources subject to BAAD rules and regulations.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-Significant Impact
BAAD’s 2017 CAP is the applicable air quality plan for projects located in the SFBAAB (BAAD 2017b). Consistency may be determined by evaluating whether the proposed Plan supports the primary goals of the 2017 CAP, including applicable control measures contained within the 2017 CAP, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any of the control measures.

The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are the attainment of ambient air quality standards and reduction of population exposure to air pollutants for the protection of public health in the Bay Area. Because the Plan would not result in any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to emissions, ambient concentrations, or public exposures (see discussions below), the Project would support the primary goals of the 2017 CAP.

The control measures from the 2017 CAP, which aim to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary, area, and mobile sources, are organized into nine categories. As described in Table 7, the proposed Plan would be consistent with the applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and the impact would be less than significant.

Table 7. Project Consistency with BAAD 2017 Clean Air Plan

CONTROL

MEASURES PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Stationary Sources
Not applicable. The stationary source measures, which are designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAD and then enforced by the BAAD’s Permit and Inspection programs. Because the Plan would not include new stationary sources, the stationary source control measures are not applicable to the Plan.

Transportation
Not applicable. The transportation control measures are designed to reduce vehicle trips, use, miles traveled, idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing vehicle emissions. Operation of the Project would not generate a substantial increase in vehicle trips compared to the existing conditions. Therefore, the transportation control measures of the 2017 CAP are not applicable to the Project.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 244
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 46 CONTROL

MEASURES PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Energy
Not applicable. The energy control measures are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG-intensive fuel sources for electricity generation. Since these measures apply to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the energy control measures of the 2017 CAP are not applicable to the Plan.

Buildings
Consistent. BAAD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the building control measures focus on working with local governments that have authority over local building codes to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. As described in Section 4.2.6, Energy, construction of buildings under future projects under the Plan would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, as adopted by the City of San Carlos. Further, development under the proposed Plan would adhere to implementing guidelines contained in the Plan, including many that promote energy conservation and efficiency. Therefore, the proposed Plan would be consistent with the building control measures of the 2017 CAP.

Agriculture
Not applicable. The agriculture control measures are designed primarily to reduce emissions of methane. Since the Plan does not include any agricultural activities, the agriculture control measures of the 2017 CAP are not applicable to the Plan.

Natural and
Working Lands
Not applicable. The control measures for the natural and working lands sector focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local governments to adopt ordinances that promote urban tree plantings. Since the Plan does not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the natural and working lands control measures of the 2017 CAP are not applicable to the Plan.

Waste
Management
Consistent. The waste management measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. As described further in Section 4.2.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Plan would comply with local requirements for waste management. Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with the waste management control measures of the 2017 CAP.

Water
Consistent. The water control measures to reduce emissions from the water sector will reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works, and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems. As described further in Section

4.2.6, Energy, the Plan contains implementing guidelines related to water conservation and efficiency, including “designing parks and facilities to minimize water use, incorporating efficient irrigation systems and utilizing reclaimed water sources where feasible.” Development of future projects under the Plan would be required to comply with CALGreen standards as adopted by the City, which include requirements for water efficiency for both indoor and outdoor usage.

Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with the water control measures of the 2017 CAP.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 245
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 47 CONTROL

MEASURES PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Super GHGs
Not applicable. The super-GHG control measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through BAAD and local government agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the super-GHG control measures of the 2017 CAP are not applicable to the Plan.

Source: BAAD 2017b
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction of future projects under the Plan would generate temporary emissions from two primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles, which would generate criteria pollutants as well as DPM and TACs, and ground disturbance during clearing and grading, which would release fugitive dust. The amount of daily emissions generated by construction activities would depend on the quantity and type of equipment used and the total duration of construction for each project. The extent of fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions would also depend on the amount of disturbed soils, the length of disturbance time, whether existing structures are being demolished, whether excavation is involved, and whether transporting excavated materials offsite or import of material to a site is necessary. Operational emissions under the Plan would result primarily from vehicle trips (mobile source emissions), natural gas and electricity uses (energy sources), landscape maintenance equipment, and other area source emissions.

BAAD’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines describe how to analyze plan-level air quality thresholds of significance to determine if a local long-range plan has a less-than-significant impact for criteria air pollutants and precursors and local risks and hazards. The guidelines state that “for a long-range plan to have a less-than-significant impact related to criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts, the plan must satisfy two requirements: It must be consistent with current air quality plan (AQP) control measures, and the proposed plan’s projected growth rate of vehicle activity in VMT or vehicle trips must be less than or equal to the projected population growth rate.”
AQPs include clean air plans prepared per the California Clean Air Act, state implementation plans prepared per the federal Clean Air Act, and community emission reduction plans (CERPs) adopted by the regional air district. BAAD’S most current clean air plan is the 2017 CAP. As described above under Threshold a), the proposed Plan is consistent with the 2017 CAP; therefore, the Plan meets the first applicable long-range plan screening requirement.

As described further in Section 4.2.17, Transportation, the proposed Plan is not anticipated to result in increased VMT or vehicle trips. The type of park improvement projects contained in the Plan are intended to serve the existing community and anticipated growth identified in the City’s General Plan. Numerous park and recreational facilities are provided by the surrounding municipalities of Belmont and Redwood City, as well as regional open space areas including (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 246
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 48 Waterdog Lake & Open Space and Edgewood Park & Natural Preserve. As such, improvements to various park facilities under the proposed Plan would not generate substantial VMT or vehicle trips as people are not expected to travel from other areas to visit the City’s parks. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not have a projected growth rate of vehicle activity in VMT or vehicle trips that would exceed the projected population growth rate. The Plan meets the second long-range screening requirement.

As described above, the Plan meets both of the BAAD long-range plan screening requirements for criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, future projects under the Plan would implement BAAD-recommended screening criteria for fugitive dust control, as required by General Plan Policy EM-6.6. These measures include activities such as watering exposed soils twice daily, covering all exposed ground areas and stockpiles, and covering loads of soil to be transported off-site. Therefore, construction activities under the Plan would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Local community risks and hazards impacts due to air pollutants are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health effects at the local level.

Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases. Residential land uses are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents, including children and the elderly, tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to pollutants, if present.

BAAD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that for a long-range plan to have a less-thansignificant impact related to local community risks and hazards, special overlay zones should be established around existing and proposed land uses that emit TACs or PM2.5, and at least a 500- foot overlay zone should be established on each side of all freeways, high-volume roadways, railyards, Ports, and rail lines using diesel locomotives. As a parks and recreation plan, the proposed Plan does not propose any new land uses that emit TACs or PM2.5, or any concentrated source of mobile emissions such as freeways or rail lines.

The amount of TAC and PM2.5 emissions generated by future projects under the proposed Plan would depend on the total duration of construction and the quantity and type of equipment being used. The potential health effects to sensitive receptors would depend on these factors as well as the distance of the emissions source to sensitive receptors. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) does not recommend assessing cancer risk for projects lasting less than two months at the maximally exposed individual resident due to the uncertainty of cancer risk from short-term exposure to emissions (OEHHA 2015). Many future projects under the Plan would only involve construction work using hand tools and would last for 1-2 months at a maximum. Therefore, a detailed Health Risk Assessment (HRA) study would not be required for such projects. However, larger projects requiring heavy equipment and lasting for over two months could result in potential health effects to sensitive receptors, which is a potentially significant impact.

To reduce potential health effects from future projects under the Plan, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 has been developed, which requires that an HRA study be implemented for future projects requiring extensive ground disturbance that would occur for longer than two months. The HRA shall assess the potential impact of the project to sensitive receptors and recommend mitigation (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 247
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 49 measures, if needed, to reduce potential construction impacts to a less-than-significant level.

With implementation of this measure, the proposed Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Construction activities for future projects under the Plan would involve the use of gasoline- or diesel-powered equipment that would generate minor odors associated with vehicle exhaust.

These activities would take place intermittently throughout the workday and the associated odors are expected to dissipate within the immediate vicinity of the work area. Operation of future projects under the Plan would not include uses that have been identified as potential sources of objectionable odors, such as restaurants, manufacturing plants, landfills, and agricultural and industrial operations. Therefore, Plan would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Construction Health Risk Assessment Individual projects under the proposed Plan that will include the use of heavy machinery (e.g., excavators, concrete trucks, bulldozers, loaders, etc.) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor for a duration of two months or longer shall prepare a Construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prior to project approval. A sensitive receptor includes any land use with a concentrated population of people that are highly susceptible to health effects of air pollution, such as children, the elderly, asthmatics. Therefore, land uses with a concentrated population of sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, retirement homes, and residential communities. If the results of the HRA indicate that the project would have a potentially significant impact to air quality sensitive receptors, the project shall implement mitigation measures recommended in the HRA to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Mitigation measures for the types of projects anticipated under the proposed Plan may include restricting vehicle idling time, implementing windbreaks, and using cleaner equipment, such as Tier 4 engines.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 248
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 50 4.2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
A Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum (Biological Memorandum) was prepared for the Plan by WRA, Inc. (WRA) in February 2025 (Appendix B). The Study Area for the Biological Memorandum included a total of 17 parks and open spaces in the City, totaling 136.2 acres. The Study Area did not include the Adult Community Center, Kiwanis Building, Laureola Building, (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 249
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 51 Library community room, or the Youth Center because these facilities do not contain any biological resources. The findings and recommendations included in the Biological Memorandum were based on database searches, a literature review, and a field survey of the Study Area. The information in this section of the IS/MND is based on and adapted from the Biological Memorandum.

REGULATORY SETTING – FEDERAL AND STATE
Endangered and Threatened Plants, Fish, and Wildlife
Specific species of plants, fish, and wildlife species may be designated as threatened or endangered by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Specific protections and permitting mechanisms for these species differ under each of these acts, and a species’ designation under one law does not automatically provide protection under the other.

The ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) is implemented by USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). USFWS and NMFS maintain lists of endangered and threatened plant and animal species (referred to as "listed species"). "Proposed" and "candidate" species are those that are being considered for listing and are not protected until they are formally listed as threatened or endangered. Under the ESA, authorization must be obtained from USFWS or NMFS prior to take of any listed species. “Take” under the ESA is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Take under the ESA includes direct injury or mortality to individuals, disruptions in normal behavioral patterns resulting from factors such as noise and visual disturbance and impacts to habitat for listed species. Actions that may result in take of an ESA-listed species may obtain a permit under ESA Section 10, or via the interagency consultation described in ESA Section 7.

Federal-listed plant species are only protected when removal or destruction occurs on federal land; however, if a federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out an action, that agency must ensure through Section 7 consultation that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

The ESA also provides for designation of critical habitat, which are specific geographic areas containing physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species.” Protections afforded to designated critical habitat apply only to actions that are funded, permitted, or carried out by federal agencies. Critical habitat designations do not affect activities by private landowners if there is no other federal agency involvement.

The CESA (California Fish and Game Code [CFGC] 2050 et seq.) prohibits the take of any plant and animal species that the CFGC determines to be an endangered or threatened species in California. CESA regulations include take protection for threatened and endangered plants and animals on private lands, as well as extending this protection to candidate species during consideration for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA. The definition of a "take" under CESA ("hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill") only applies to direct impact to individuals, and does not extend to habitat impacts or harassment. CDFW may issue an Incidental Take Permit under CESA to authorize take if it is incidental to otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. Take of these species is also authorized if the geographic area is covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan, as (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 250
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 52 long as the plan covers that activity. CDFW may also authorize take for voluntary restoration projects through the Restoration Management Permit.

Fully Protected Species and Designated Rare Plant Species This category includes specific plant and wildlife species that are designated in the CFGC as protected even if not listed under CESA or ESA. Fully Protected Species includes specific lists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish designated in CFGC. Fully Protected Species may not be taken or possessed at any time. No licenses or permits may be issued by CDFW for take of fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research and conservation purposes. The definition of "take" is the same under CFGC and the CESA. By law, CDFW may not issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected Species. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act, CDFW has listed 64 “rare” or “endangered” plant species, and prevents “take,” with few exceptions, of these species.

Special Protections for Nesting Birds and Bats
The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides relatively broad protections to both of North America’s eagle species (bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus] and golden eagle [Aquila chrysaetos]) that in some regards are similar to those provided by the ESA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States, including nonstatus species, have baseline legal protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and CFGC sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws/codes, the intentional harm or collection of adult birds as well as the intentional collection or destruction of active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. For bat species, the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designates conservation status for species of bats, and those with a high or medium-high priority are typically given special consideration under CEQA.

Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides for conservation and management of fishery resources in the U.S., administered by NMFS. This Act establishes a national program intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, ensure conservation, and facilitate long-term protection through the establishment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

EFH consists of aquatic areas that contain habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of fisheries, which may include the water column, certain bottom types, vegetation (e.g., eelgrass [Zostera spp.]), or complex structures such as oyster beds. Any federal agency that authorizes, funds, or undertakes action that may adversely affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS.

Species of Special Concern, Movement Corridors, and Other Special-status Species under CEQA A Species of Special Concern (SSC) is a species formally designated by the CDFW which meets one or more criteria related to a Federal ESA status (if it is not listed under CESA), including extirpation from California, documented population declines, or small population size within California and risk of declines. In addition, CDFW has developed a special animals list as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.” This list includes lists developed by other organizations, including for example, the Audubon Watch List Species, the Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species, and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (Inventory; CNPS 2025) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2, as well as some with a Rank of 3 or 4, are also considered special-status plant species (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 251
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 53 and must be considered under CEQA. Some Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are typically only afforded protection under CEQA when such species are particularly unique to the locale (e.g., range limit, low abundance/low frequency, limited habitat) or are otherwise considered locally rare. Additionally, any species listed as sensitive within local plans, policies and ordinances are likewise considered sensitive. Movement and migratory corridors for native wildlife (including aquatic corridors) as well as wildlife nursery sites are given special consideration under CEQA.

REGULATORY SETTING – LOCAL
San Carlos General Plan
The San Carlos General Plan contains the following applicable policies related to biological resources:
• Policy EM-1.1: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development project applications. • Policy EM-1.2: Ensure that development is consistent with all federal, State and regional regulations for habitat and species protection. • Policy EM-2.1: Preserve and enhance riparian areas.
• Policy EM-2.2: Continue to enforce the City’s Riparian Ordinance for all four of the City’s creeks (Pulgas, Brittan, Cordilleras and Belmont) and their tributaries.

San Carlos Municipal Code
The San Carlos Municipal Code (SCMC) limits the removal or pruning of “protected trees” within the City, which include “heritage trees” and “significant trees,’ as defined in Chater 18.18 of the SCMC. No protected tree may be removed, pruned, or otherwise materially altered without a permit except, with some exceptions. Chemicals or other construction materials also may not be stored within the tree protection zone of protected trees. In addition, construction activities performed within an area ten times the diameter of a protected tree shall require submittal and implementation of a tree protection plan for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. Underground trenching for utilities shall also avoid major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees.

Section 18.18.070(F) includes decision-making criteria for the removal of protected trees. Tree removal permits are issued at the discretion of the City Arborist based upon the following:
• Whether the tree is dead as designated by the City Arborist. • Whether the condition of the protected tree poses a high or extreme risk to people and property that cannot be reasonably abated to a low risk with sound arboricultural treatments.
• Whether the protected tree is 1) dying or has a sever disease, pest infestation, intolerance to adverse site conditions, or other condition, or 2) is likely to die within a year as designated by an ISA-certified arborist or the City Arborist. • Whether the protected tree is a member of a species that ahs been designated as invasive or low species desirability by the City Arborist. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 252
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 54 • Whether the protected tree interfere with existing or proposed development, repair alteration, or improvement of a site or the protected tree is causing or contributing to structural damage to a habitable building.
• Whether the removal and/or pruning is requested by a utility, public transportation agency, or other governmental agency due to a health or safety risk resulting from the protected tree’s interference with existing or planned public infrastructure and there is no reasonable design alternative that would permit preservation of the protected tree.

Section 12.0.070 of the SCMC states that “the City shall not require a permit for its removal of a public tree but shall be subject to the findings in Section 18.18.070 in determining whether it should remove a protected tree which is a public tree.”

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
On August 13 and 14, 2024, WRA biologists traversed over nine miles of official and unofficial trails within the Plan Area to 1) confirm vegetation communities obtained from the San Mateo County vegetation mapping dataset (2021), 2) determine if existing conditions provide suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species, 3) determine the baseline conditions of habitat quality within view from trails within the Plan Area, 4) and determine the parks’ consistency with existing regulations and policies. A list of incidental species observations was also compiled.

Sensitive Biological Communities
During the site visit, WRA evaluated the species composition and area occupied by distinct vegetation communities, aquatic communities, and other land cover types. Mapping of these classifications utilized a combination of aerial imagery and ground surveys. Additionally, the San Mateo County vegetation mapping dataset (2022) was examined to provide baseline information on plant communities. Sensitive vegetation communities are classified by the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2023) and A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2024a) classifications. Each biological community in the California Natural Community List and A Manual of California Vegetation is given a state or global ranking, ranging from 1 to 5. These rankings are defined below, with G indicating global status, and S indicating state status for California. State and/or global rankings of 1, 2, or 3 are considered sensitive.

1. Critically Imperiled: At very high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, very severe threats, or other factors.

2. Imperiled: At high risk of extinction or elimination due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

3. Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

4. Apparently Secure: At fairly low risk of extinction or elimination due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

5. Secure: At very low risk of extinction or elimination due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 253
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 55 Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other state, federal, and local laws, regulations and ordinances, and generally are ranked 4 or 5 on a global or state level. These communities may provide suitable habitat for some special-status plant or wildlife species and are discussed below. Sensitive biological communities are defined as those communities that are given special protection under CEQA and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological communities are discussed below.

Wetlands and Waters
The Study Area was surveyed at a reconnaissance level to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), RWQCB, or CDFW were present. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators but may also include any observed indicators of wetland hydrology as defined by the USACE Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include evidence such as visible inundation or saturation, surface sediment deposits, algal mats and drift lines, and oxidized root channels. Given that the site visits did not include a routine-level wetland delineation and was only reconnaissance level, soils were not examined in the field as part of this assessment. Streams were remotely mapped in ArcGIS using hydrologic modeling tools including aerial imagery (Google Earth 2024), the California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) dataset (2023) and topography data.

Special-status Species
Potential occurrence of special-status species in the Study Area was evaluated by first determining which special-status species occur in the vicinity of the Study Area through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special-status species was for the San Mateo, Redwood Point, Woodside, and Palo Alto 7.5-minute U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles. The following sources were reviewed to determine which special-status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area:
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2025a) • CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2025)
• USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (USFWS 2025) • California Bird Species of Special Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008) • San Mateo County vegetation mapping databased (County of San Mateo 2022)

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover
Non-sensitive biological communities in the Study Area include developed/disturbed, ornamental, annual grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, closed-cone pine-cypress, coastal oak woodland, and eucalyptus groves. Sensitive biological communities include California bay woodland, California buckeye groves, saline emergent wetland, freshwater emergent wetland, intermittent streams, (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 254
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 56 ephemeral streams, and other waters. Descriptions of land cover types are included below. Land cover types within the Study Area are shown in Appendix B. Biological Resources Memorandum.

Non-Sensitive Land Cover Types
Developed/Disturbed (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. This land cover type includes areas which have been cleared of natural vegetation. Developed areas include paved areas, structures, playgrounds, sports fields, and areas covered with permeable paving surfaces such as decomposed granite or mulch. Disturbed areas include undeveloped areas which have been previously disturbed and are currently dominated by weedy and/or ruderal vegetation, including yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitalis), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea), stinkweed (Dittrichia graveolens), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis), French broom (Genista monspessulana), and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Developed/disturbed areas are not classified as sensitive by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Ornamental (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Ornamental areas have been cleared of natural vegetation and now contain actively managed landscaping and Citymaintained trees. This land cover type includes landscaping, turfgrass lawns, pollinator gardens, and street trees. Common ornamental species in the Study Area included turf grasses, white clover (Trifolium repens), and common plantain (Plantago major) in lawns; lavender (Lavandula sp.), roses (Rosa sp.), ornamental rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), and bank catclaw (Acacia redolens) bushes. Common ornamental trees included native species such as coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), as well as common ornamental species such as European plum (Prunus domestica), Persian silk trees (Albizia julibrissin), crepe myrtle (Lagerostroemia indica), Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), olive (Olea europaea), red pine (Pinus rubra), strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo), callery pear (Pyrus callereyana), London plane (Platanus xhispanica), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), and mulberry (Morus sp.). Ornamental areas are not classified as sensitive by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Annual Grassland (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Annual grassland is common throughout California and consists of herbaceous vegetation dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. Sparse shrubs or trees may be present at low cover (< 5% absolute cover).

Within the Study Area, dominant species in the annual grasslands included slim oat (Avena barbata), brome fescue (Festuca bromoides), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), foxtail barley (H. murinum), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), barley (Hordeum murinum), common plantain, yellow star-thistle, purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and Torrey’s melic grass (Melica torreyana). Annual grassland was common in open spaces and neighborhood parks within the Study Area. This land cover is not classified as sensitive by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Coastal Live Oak Woodland (various vegetation alliances). CDFW Rank: Not Sensitive. Coastal oak woodlands are common throughout open space areas (Big Canyon Park, and Eaton Park), parks (Arguello Park, Chilton Park, North Crestview Park, Vista Park, and Heather Dog Exercise Area), within the Study Area. Typical tree species in the Study Area include California buckeye (Aesculus californica), California bay (Umbellularia californica), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). Patches of non-native trees or escaped ornamental trees were also common, including olive, pines (Pinus ponderosa, P. halepensis, P. resinosa), Chinese pistache (Pistache (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 255
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 57 chinensis), and prickly pear (Opuntia sp.). Common shrub species within coastal oak woodland include poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), sticky monkey flower (Diplacus aurantiacus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and toyon. The herbaceous layer is composed of annual grass species and shade tolerant native herbs. Common herbaceous species include Torry’s melic grass, dogtail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), maidenhair fern (Adiantum jordanii), soapplant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), and tall sock-destroyer (Torillis arvensis).

Coastal oak woodlands include two alliances, the mixed oak woodland (Quercus [agrifolia, douglasii, garryana, kelloggii, lobata, wislizeni] woodland alliance) and the coast live oak woodland (Q. agrifolia woodland alliance). Both alliances are ranked G4/S4, and this land cover is not classified as sensitive to by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (various vegetation alliances). CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Coastal scrub occurs in the open space areas of Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park as well as North Crestview Park and Vista Park, primarily on dry, south-facing slopes, open hillsides, and steep, welldrained canyon walls. This land cover type consists of an intermittent to continuous shrub canopy which is usually less dense than chaparral. Within the Study Area, coastal scrub/chaparral is composed of a mix of several vegetation alliances, including coyote brush scrub (Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance, G5/S5), California sagebrush scrub (Artemisia californica shrubland alliance, G5/S5), poison oak scrub (Toxicodendron diversilobum shrubland alliance, G4/S4), and chamise chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum shrubland alliance, G5/S5), each dominated by the respective species. Additional common non-dominant species included sticky monkey flower, toyon, Canada horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), sage (Salvia sp.), and occasional French broom.

Occasional coast live oak occur within this community, but the individual oak trees are still relatively small and at low cover. Where an herbaceous layer is present, it was composed of non-native annual grasses typical of the annual grasslands.

Within Big Canyon Park, large portions of the coastal scrub/chaparral bordering residences had been extensively grazed and trimmed back to short basal stems. The vegetation alliances within this land cover type are ranked G4/G4 – G5/S5, and coastal scrub/chaparral is not classified as sensitive to by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Closed-cone Pine-Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa - Pinus radiata woodland semi-natural alliance). CDFW Rank: GNA/SNA. Closed-cone pine-cypress occurs within Highlands Park, Crestview Park, and North Crestview Park. This community is composed of planted trees, groves, and windbreaks which have naturalized in coastal areas. Closed-cone pine-cypress is classified as the Hesperocyparis macrocarpa - Pinus radiata woodland semi-natural alliance and is defined by the presence of a moderately tall (<50 meters) open to continuous tree canopy dominated by Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) and/or introduced pines (Pinus spp.) (CNPS 2024b). Within the Study Area, dominant species included Monterey cypress, Monterey pines (Pinus radiata), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis). A sparse shrub layer was composed of coyote bush, and herbaceous species included non-native annual grassland species (as described above). Closed-cone pine cypress is ranked GNA/SNA, and this land cover is not classified as sensitive to by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Eucalyptus Groves (Eucalyptus [globulus, camaldulensis] woodland semi-natural alliance).

CDFW Rank: GNA/SNA. Eucalyptus groves, not including isolated eucalyptus trees, occur in (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 256
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 58 Arguello Park, Eaton Park, and the Heather Dog Exercise Area. Eucalyptus groves are dominated by one of several eucalyptus species, which are not native to North America. Eucalyptus groves are frequently situated in rural and semi-urbanized settings, along streams, and coastal hills.

This community is ranked GNA/SNA, and it is not classified as sensitive to by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, or any other regulating agency.

Sensitive Land Cover Types
California Bay Woodland (Umbellularia californica woodland alliance, G4/S3). CDFW Rank:

Sensitive. California bay woodlands are known from the inner and outer Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, and Sierra Nevada Foothills from Del Norte County south to San Diego County. This vegetation community is typically located on terraces, canyon bottoms, north-facing slopes, and rock outcrops underlain by shallow to deep sand to loam substrates (CNPS 2024a).

California bay woodlands are defined by their intermittent to continuous tree canopy dominated by California bay, with common co-dominant tree species including California buckeye (Aesculus californica), oaks (Quercus agrifolia, Q. chrysolepis, Q. wislizeni), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and alder (Alnus rhombifolia, A. rubra), among others.

Within the Study Area, California bay woodland occurs in Eaton Park and cover five acres along streams in canyon bottoms. This land cover type intergrades with the neighboring coastal oak woodlands. This community is ranked G4/S3 and is classified as sensitive by CDFW.

California Buckeye Groves (Aesculus californica woodland alliance, G3/S3). CDFW Rank:

Sensitive. California buckeye groves are known from the southern Cascade Range, Coast Ranges, northern Transverse Range, and Sierra Nevada Foothills from Siskiyou County south to Ventura County. This vegetation community is typically located on shallow, moderate to well-drained soils in canyons and alluvial terraces (CNPS 2024b). California buckeye groves are defined by an open to continuous tree canopy dominated by California buckeye.

Within the Study Area, California buckeye groves occur in Eaton Park along a northeast-facing slope, and cover 2.55 acres. This community commonly intergrades with the California bay and coastal oak woodland. Species within this community include California buckeye, California bay, coast live oak, oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), poison oak, wood fern, tall sock-destroyer, snowberry, and annual grasses including slim wild oat (Avena barbata) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). California buckeye groves are ranked G3/S3 and are classified as sensitive by CDFW.

Intermittent Stream (no vegetation alliance). Intermittent streams are linear features that have indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and within which water flows for a portion of the year, generally drying out during the driest time of the year. Two blue-line intermittent streams, Pulgas Creek and Cordilleras Creek, occur in San Carlos city limits. Within the Study Area, 0.27 acres of intermittent streams occur in Big Canyon and Eaton Parks. Indicators of the OHWM include scour, cobble sorting, and a break in vegetation. Remnant flow and remnant inchannel pools were common in intermittent streams during the August 2024 field survey.

Intermittent streams are potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, under jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW.

Ephemeral Stream (no vegetation alliance). Ephemeral drainages are narrow, shallow, linear features that exhibit indicators of an OHWM and convey flows only during or immediately after a (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 257
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 59 precipitation event but remain dry otherwise. Ephemeral streams cover 0.13 acres within the Study Area in Big Canyon and Eaton Parks. Indicators of the OHWM include scouring and cobble sorting. Intermittent streams sometimes show a break in vegetation and support facultative upland species including poison oak within the channel. Ephemeral streams are potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, under jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW.

Freshwater Emergent Wetland (no vegetation alliance). Freshwater emergent wetlands are areas which experience frequent flooding, and are defined by the dominance of erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophytes (wetland-adapted plant species). Within the Study Area, freshwater emergent wetlands cover 0.26 acre of Arguello Park. Dominant species within this community included California buckeye in the tree layer, California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and poison oak in the shrub layer, and tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis), umbrella sedge (C. squarrosus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), Torry’s melic grass, and English Ivy (Hedera helix) in the herbaceous layer. Indicators of the OWHM included a distinct wrack line and scour. Freshwater emergent wetlands are potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, under jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW, and potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE as well. A USACE-verified delineation would be required to determine the extent of USACE jurisdiction.

Special-status Plant Species
Based upon a review of the resource databases listed under Assessment Methodology above, 54 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area. Of these species, 12 were determined to have moderate to high potential to occur or are present within the Study Area, including:
• Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum), Rank 1B.2, Known to Occur • Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), Rank 1B.2, Moderate Potential • Brewer’s calandrinia (Calandrinia breweri), Rank 4.2, High Potential • San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor), Rank 1B.2, Known to Occur • Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), Rank 4.2, Known to Occur • Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), Rank 1B.2, Known to Occur • California bottle-brush grass (Elymus californicus), Rank 4.3, Moderate Potential • San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum), FE, SE, Rank 1B.1, Moderate Potential
• Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), Rank 1B.2, Moderate potential • Arcuate bush-mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus), Rank 1B.2, High potential • Woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens), Rank 1B.2, Known to Occur • Choris’s popcornflower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus), Rank 1B.2, Moderate Potential
Special-status Wildlife Species
Based on a review of literature and resource databases, 41 special-status wildlife species have been documented in the vicinity of the Plan Area. Most of these species have no potential to occur on-site due to a lack of suitable habitat features. Eight special-status species have (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 258
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 60 moderate potential to occur in the immediate vicinity of or in portions of the Plan Area, including the following:
• San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), CDFW Species of Special Concern
• White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), CDFW Fully Protected Species • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), WBWG Medium Priority
• Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), CDFW Species of Special Concern, WBWG High Priority • Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), CDFW Species of Special Concern • Northern harrier (Circus hudsonius [cyaneus]), CDFW Species of Special Concern • American badger (Taxidea taxus), CDFW Species of Special Concern • Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), State candidate Critical Habitat
A review of the background literature showed that the Plan Area does not contain any critical habitat as designated by the USFWS.

PARKS MASTER PLAN GUIDELINES
• Plan for long-term tree succession, proactively planting new trees to replace aging or declining canopy.
• Integrate natural systems into park design, limiting lawn areas to active-use spaces and emphasizing plantings that provide seasonal interest and habitat value. • Use plant palettes appropriate to San Carlos’ climate, consistent with Climate Zone 10a and USDA Plant Hardiness Zone guidance.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Special-status Plants
Twelve special-status plant species are known to occur or have potential to occur within the Study Area, including Franciscan onion, Bent-flowered fiddleneck, Brewer’s calandrinia, San Francisco collinsia, paniculate tarplant, Western leatherwood, California bottle-brush grass, San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum), fragrant fritillary, arcuate bush-mallow, woodland woolythreads, and Choris’s popcornflower. These species have the potential to occur in several habitats present within the Plan Area, particularly in areas where associated species are found, including annual grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, closed-cone pine-cypress, coastal oak woodland, and intermittent and ephemeral streams. Many of the proposed improvements included in the Plan would only impact already disturbed and/or developed areas which would (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 259
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 61 not result in any impact to special-status plants. However, ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal in natural vegetation communities (i.e., all other land cover types aside from developed and ornamental) with the potential to support special-status plant species have the potential to result in direct impacts to special-status plants, if they are present.

To reduce potential impacts to special-status plants, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a shall be implemented, which requires that special-status plant surveys be conducted prior to any proposed ground disturbance in natural land cover types. Within the Plan Area, natural land cover types are present at Arguello Park, Big Canyon Park, Chilton Park, Crestview Park, Eaton Park, Heather Dog Exercise Area, Highlands Park, North Crestview Park, and Vista Park. Surveys shall be conducted within the proposed disturbance area one year prior to development during the appropriate timeframe when plants with moderate potential to occur are evident and identifiable. If no special-status plants are found, then no further measures are required.

If special-status plants are identified, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b would be implemented, which requires measures for avoidance of special-status plants during construction via established activity exclusion zones. If plants cannot be avoided, seeds will be harvested and stored for reintroduction into a preserved portion of the project site, and a Habitat Management Plan or similar document will be prepared and implemented. The Habitat Management Plan shall contain monitoring methods and performance criteria for post-construction monitoring, including criteria for the successful establishment and preservation of special-status plants within the reintroduction area.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed Plan would not have a significant impact on special-status plant species. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-status Wildlife
A variety of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the Plan Area. Eight special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the Plan Area, including San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, hoary bat, pallid bat, olivesided flycatcher, Northern harrier, American badger, and Crotch's bumble bee. In addition, native nesting birds protected under the MBTA also have the potential to be present within the Plan Area. An analysis of potential impacts to each species is included below.

San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat
During the field survey conducted by WRA in 2024, evidence of woodrat activity was identified within Big Canyon Park, Eaton Park, and Arguello Park. Numerous woodrat structures were observed both along riparian corridors and in more upland thickets of various types of shrubs, many within 30 to 50 feet of existing trails. This species should be assumed to have potential to nest in any portion of the Plan Area that contains a relatively dense understory.

If active nests or individuals of this species are present in work areas for future projects implemented under the Plan, direct impacts may occur by destroying active nests or causing individual mortality. To avoid and minimize impacts to dusky-footed woodrat, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and BIO-3 would be implemented.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 260
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 62 Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires that worker environmental awareness training be given to all personnel involved in project construction. The training shall consist of a brief presentation of special-status species that have potential to occur in the project area, as well as an explanation of their protection under state and federal legislation, and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires pre-construction surveys for woodrat structures prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbance. If avoidance of woodrat structures is not possible, the structures shall be dismantled by hand under supervision of a qualified biologist; however, if woodrat young are encountered during the dismantling process, materials shall be placed back and a work exclusion buffer of 50 feet shall be placed around the structure for at least two weeks or until the young have left the structure.

Implementation of these two measures would ensure that proposed park projects under the Plan would not have a significant effect on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat.

American Badger
American badger is found uncommonly within the Plan Area region in drier, open stages of most scrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats where friable soils and prey populations are present.

Badgers are typically solitary and nocturnal, digging burrows to provide refuge during daylight hours. Burrow entrances are usually elliptical (rather than round), and each burrow generally has only one entrance. This species is likely to avoid highly trafficked areas where trails have been relatively compacted, or densely wooded or vegetated habitats within the Study Area. However, friable soils and more open habitats exist in higher elevation locations (i.e., on grassy slopes) within Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park could support this species. No large mammal burrows were observed during the site visits.

Ground-disturbing in undeveloped areas of the Plan Area (i.e., all land cover types aside from developed and ornamental) could result in potential direct or indirect impacts to American badger via destruction of burrows, which is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented, as described above, which requires a worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel.

In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would be implemented, which requires pre-construction surveys for badger dens no more than two weeks prior to construction activity in any suitable habitat. If dens are found, but are inactive, the den shall be excavated by hand and backfilled to prevent badgers from using the burrow. If an active den is found, a qualified biologist shall determine the state of occupancy and implement avoidance measures depending on whether the den is occupied by a single mammal or is natal den.

With implementation of these measures, park projects under the proposed Plan would not have a significant effect on American badger.

Crotch's Bumble Bee
Crotch's bumble bee occurs primarily in central and southern California, from coastal areas inland to the foothills. Crotch's bumble bee occurs in grassland and scrub habitats and has also been documented in agricultural areas. The Study Area is within the current range of this species.

Crotch's bumble bee may occur in grassland and scrub habitats where flowering resources and (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 261
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 63 burrowing rodent activity are present, mostly likely within Big Canyon Park, Eaton Park, and Arguello Park. Note, the timing of vegetation management may affect the availability of flowing resources during different periods of the season. For example, if grasslands within the Study Area are heavily grazed in the summer, the Study Area may function as early season foraging habitat but may not support nesting.

If Crotch's bumble bees are present in the Plan Area, grading activities within grassland habitat may result in the mortality of individuals and their nests, which is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented, as described above, which requires worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel.

In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be implemented, which requires pre-construction surveys for Crotch's bumble bee prior to commencement of construction activities in grassland habitat. If Crotch's bumble bees are observed during the survey, construction shall not commence until CDFW provides further guidance, which may include additional surveys by a bumble bee expert, waiting until the colony active season ends, obtaining take authorization or other actions.

With implementation of these measures, park projects under the proposed Plan would not have a significant effect on Crotch's bumble bee.

Special-status Bats
Hoary bat and pallid bat are known to occur in a variety of habitats within the San Francisco Bay Area. In particular, wooded habitats within the Plan Area, particularly in the vicinity of riparian areas, could provide sources of forage for hoary bat and other non-special-status bats with baseline protections. In addition, suitable roost sites, such as tree snags, basal cavities, and rock outcrops/crevices were observed in the Study Area, particularly in Big Canyon Park, Eaton Park, and Arguello Park. Numerous bat boxes were also observed along existing trails that may provide roosting habitat for pallid bats or other bat species with baseline protections.

Tree removal associated with the proposed Plan could result in the direct removal of active bat roosts protected under the CFGC and CEQA, which is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented, as described above, which requires worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel.

In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 shall be implemented, which requires bat roosts assessments to be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to tree removal to determine if bat roosts are present. If roosts are detected, the roosts shall be protected by a no-disturbance buffer of no less than 100 feet. In addition, all felled trees shall remain on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to chipping, off-site removal, or other processing to allow any bats present within the tree to escape.

With implementation of these measures, park projects under the proposed Plan would not have a significant effect on roosting bats.

Special-status and Nesting Birds
Special-status birds, including white-tailed kite, olive-sided flycatcher, and Northern harrier have potential to occur within the Study Area. In addition to special-status nesting birds, common native avian species may also nest within the Plan Area (including facilities which were excluded (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 262
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 64 from the Study Area) and non-special status native nesting birds may be similarly affected by Project activities. Grading, vegetation removal, and demolition of existing structures may directly impact the nests of protected species or may impact these species through visual and auditory disturbance sufficient to cause nest abandonment. Due to the protected status of these species under both the MBTA and CDFW, impacts to special-status and common native nesting birds would also be considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

To reduce potential impacts to special-status and nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented, which requires a worker environmental awareness training for construction personnel.

In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would be implemented, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys for all project work that would occur within the nesting bird season. If nests are found, a no disturbance buffer must be established around the nest which shall be designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area where no project activities shall occur until the young birds have fully fledged or the nest becomes otherwise inactive.

With implementation of these measures, park projects under the proposed Plan would not have a significant effect on special-status or nesting birds.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO7, the proposed Plan would not have a significant effect on any special-status plant or wildlife species. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Plan Area contains sensitive land cover types such as California bay woodland, California buckeye groves, freshwater emergent wetland, intermittent streams, and ephemeral streams.

The majority of proposed improvements included in the Plan would be within developed areas or in non-sensitive land cover types. The only parks within the Plan Area that contain sensitive land cover types are Arguello Park, Big Canyon Park, and Eaton Park.

Arguello Park contains one sensitive land cover type: freshwater emergent wetland. All proposed improvements at Arguello Park would take place within already developed areas, aside from the following for which plans are not yet developed:
• Construction of a new asphalt pump track,
• Construction of a vista point,
• Formalization or realignment of trails,
• Improving access to the picnic area, and
• Installation of a mini ropes course
If these improvements encroach on freshwater emergent wetland at Arguello Park, a potentially significant impact would occur, and the City would be required to implement Mitigation Measure (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 263
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 65 BIO-8. This measure requires the City to consult with applicable regulatory agencies, including CDFW, San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and USACE for any planned improvements that could impact aquatic resources. The City would be required to consult with the applicable agency or agencies by characterizing the impacts to aquatic resources, which may require a formal wetland delineation, and implementing mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8, the proposed Plan would not result in a significant impact to freshwater emergent wetlands at Arguello Park. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Big Canyon Park contains two sensitive land cover types: ephemeral stream and intermittent stream. All proposed improvements at Big Canyon Park would take place within already developed areas, aside from the following for which plans are not yet developed:
• Construction of a vista point
• Construction of new restrooms and associated infrastructure • Paving of an ADA trail
• Installation of erosion control measures and a floodplain detention basin If these improvements encroach on ephemeral stream or intermittent stream areas within Big Canyon Park, a potentially significant impact would occur, and the City would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8. As described above, this measure requires the City to consult with regulatory agencies regarding potential impacts to aquatic resources and implement mitigation measures as included in the final permit conditions.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8, the proposed Plan would not result in a significant impact to ephemeral stream or intermittent stream at Big Canyon Park. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Eaton Park contains four sensitive land cover types: California bay woodland, California buckeye grove, ephemeral stream, and intermittent stream. Planned improvements to Eaton Park include updating wayfinding signage, improving existing natural surface trails, and paving an existing fire road. Therefore, improvements at Eaton Park would not occur outside of already developed areas and would not impact any sensitive land cover types.

The impact would be less than significant.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Aquatic resources, including wetlands, are present within Arguello Park, Big Canyon Park, and Eaton Park. As described above in Threshold b), if proposed improvements at Arguello Park and Big Canyon Park would impact any potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, the City would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8. This measure requires that the City consult with regulatory agencies such as CDFW, RWQCB, and USACE and implement all requirements of (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 264
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 66 the final permit conditions. As described above in Threshold b), improvements at Eaton Park would be within already developed areas; therefore, no impact to aquatic resources would occur.

With implementation of this Mitigation Measure BIO-8, the proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The proposed Plan would include improvements to existing parks within San Carlos, primarily in the form of infrastructure upgrades, trails rehabilitation, and construction of park infrastructure such as restrooms, benches, and shade structures. These improvements would not change existing use of the parks in a way that would interfere with movement of migratory fish or wildlife or with established wildlife corridors. Wildlife species may pass through parks within the Plan Area or use portions of the Plan Area for hunting, foraging, or nesting. While construction of some individual projects under the Plan may deter wildlife from using sites during construction due to noise, these impacts would be temporary and would only occur during working hours during the day.

Operation of the proposed Plan would not interfere with wildlife movement within the Plan Area or obstruct wildlife from using the Plan Area for foraging, hunting, nesting, or other purposes.

Therefore, the impact of the proposed Plan would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The SCMC prohibits the removal or pruning of any protected tree without the issuance of a tree removal permit. However, as stated in Section 12.0.070 of the SCMC, the City is not required to obtain a permit for its own removal of a public tree, but shall be subject to the findings in Section 18.18.070 in determining whether it should remove a protected tree which is a public tree. The majority of proposed improvements under the Plan would not require tree removal; however, mid- and long-range improvements may require tree removal for siting and construction of new facilities. In accordance with the SCMC, the City would be required to use the findings in Section 18.18.070 to determine whether the removal of protected trees is warranted. However, the City is not required to obtain a permit for its own removal or protected public trees. The proposed Plan would not conflict with the City’s tree ordinance.

The City’s General Plan contains various policies aimed at protecting biological resources, such as Policy EM-1.1 and EM-1.2, which direct the City to ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development project applications, and ensure that development consistent with all federal, State and regional regulations for habitat and species protection. Potential impacts of the Plan regarding specialstatus species and their habitats and sensitive natural communities are analyzed under Threshold a) and b) and would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 265
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 67 General Plan Policy EM-2.1 directs the City to preserve and enhance riparian areas, and Policy EM-2.2 directs the City to continue to enforce the Riparian Ordinance for all four of the City’s creeks (Pulgas, Brittan, Cordilleras and Belmont) and their tributaries. As described under Threshold c), the City shall implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8 for any potential impacts to aquatic resources. This measure requires that, if potential impacts to aquatic resources are proposed, the City shall consult with applicable regulatory agencies such as the USACE, RWQCB and CDFW, and adhere to all requirements in the final permit conditions. This measure would ensure that any impacts to riparian areas would be less than significant.

Therefore, the proposed Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The impact would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the Plan Area. No impact would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a. Special-status Plants
Targeted surveys for special-status plant species shall be conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities for any projects that would result in ground disturbance outside of developed or ornamental land cover. Botanical surveys will be conducted within the work area the year prior to development by a qualified biologist during the appropriate timeframe when plants with moderate potential to occur are evident and identifiable in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities, dated March 20, 2018, and available at: Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines (CDFW.ca). Three appropriately timed protocol-level surveys will be performed, one during mid spring (March-May), one during late spring/early summer (May-June), and one during mid-late summer (July-August). Reference site visits will be conducted to confirm that the target species are in bloom during the surveys. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to special-status plant species and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b. Special-status Plants
If special-status plant species are found, populations or individuals will be flagged and fully avoided by a 10-foot no-disturbance buffer where no ground-disturbing activities will take place, including construction staging or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species will be established prior to activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which will be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The size of activity exclusion zones may be determined through consultation with a qualified biologist.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 266
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 68 If special-status plants are present and impacts to those plant populations cannot be avoided, seed or other propagules will be harvested from at least 50 percent of plants within areas of impact. Harvested seed or propagules will be stored for reintroduction into the preserved portion of the project site. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP), or similar document(s) by a different name(s), will be prepared for the reintroduction area. The HMP will be provided to the City and CDFW for approval. The HMP will provide detailed information to the CDFW and the City on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. An HMP will identify appropriate mitigation ratios developed in consultation with CDFW.

The HMP will also include monitoring methods and performance criteria for post-construction monitoring, including criteria for the successful establishment and preservation of special-status plants within the reintroduction area. Success criteria include:
• Habitat acreage for special-status plants in the reintroduction area will be equivalent to the acreage occupied by those species during the most recent survey that occurs prior to construction.
• Populations of special-status plants will be monitored annually for a minimum of 5 years following establishment of the reintroduction area. • Management of invasive species such that species rated as “High” by the California Invasive Plant Council, with the exception of common non-native grasses that dominate undeveloped habitats in the surrounding area, will not collectively exceed 5 percent absolute cover within the reintroduction area.
• Based on the results of post-construction monitoring, adaptive management actions will be implemented, if necessary. Adaptive management actions may include reseeding and treatment of invasive species.

If propagation efforts do not meet performance standards, then the loss of individuals of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences, as approved by CDFW and the City.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Worker Environmental Awareness Training For projects under the proposed Plan that involve ground-disturbing activities in undeveloped land cover (i.e., any land cover type within the Plan Area other than developed and ornamental), a qualified biologist shall provide a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) training to all personnel involved in project construction. At a minimum, the WEAP shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable about the biology of sensitive species with potential to occur in the project footprint, and about their legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved with implementation of the project. The WEAP will include a description of any special-status species with potential to occur in the project footprint, its habitat needs, any reports of occurrences in the area, an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under State and Federal legislation, and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 267
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 69 Mitigation Measure BIO-3. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat To avoid potential impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, the following measures will be implemented:
• Prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbance within suitable habitat, a preconstruction survey for woodrat structures shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Any woodrat structures found during the survey shall be flagged and avoided. • If avoidance is not possible, then structures to be impacted shall be dismantled by hand under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Dismantled nest material shall be moved to adjacent vegetated areas that will not be disturbed. • If woodrat young are encountered during the dismantling process, materials shall be placed back on the structure and a work exclusion buffer of 50 feet placed around the structure. The structure shall remain undisturbed for at least two weeks to allow the young to mature and leave of their own accord, or for the female to move the young.

After the avoidance period, the nest dismantling process may begin again.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4. American Badger
The following minimization measure will be implemented for any ground-disturbing activities in undeveloped land cover (i.e., any land cover type other than developed and ornamental) within Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park to avoid potential impacts to American badger:
• A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused pre-construction survey for badger dens no more than two weeks prior to construction activity in any suitable habitat proposed for ground disturbance. If no potential badger dens are present within the construction footprint, no further action is required.
• If a den is identified, but is inactive, the den will be excavated by hand and backfilled to prevent badgers from using the burrow.
• If the badger den is active the qualified biologist shall determine the state of occupancy (i.e., single animal occupancy or a natal den). o If the burrow is occupied by a single animal, the mouth of the burrow will be repeatedly blocked with earth, sticks and similar materials for 3-5 days to exclude the animals and allow the badger to self-relocate. After 5 or more days of burrow exclusion, the den is excavated and backfilled using hand tools. o If the burrow is a natal den, it shall be avoided by a minimum of 50-ft until the young are sufficiently developed to leave the burrow on their own. Once the young have developed sufficiently to leave the burrow on their own, the biologist will reassess the burrow for occupancy. If no additional young are present, but the burrow remains occupied by the adult, burrow exclusion as described above may occur, followed by excavation and backfill.

Mitigation Measure BIO 5. Crotch's Bumble Bee
The following measures will be implemented for any ground-disturbing activities in undeveloped land cover (i.e., any land cover type other than developed and ornamental) within Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park at appropriate sites to avoid potential impacts to Crotch's bumble bee:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 268
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 70 • A qualified biologist shall survey for Crotch's bumble bee prior to the commencement of construction activities during the colony active period or the gyne flight season (generally, April 1 to October 31). The survey shall occur at least two hours after sunrise (> 60F and < 90F with no rain) or two hours before sunset and the survey area shall include the project boundaries and a surrounding 100-foot buffer area. The survey duration shall be appropriate to the size of the project site and buffer area based on the metric of a minimum of one person-hour of searching per three acres of suitable habitat.
• During the survey(s) the qualified biologists may not capture or handle bumble bees unless specifically authorized to do so for the project by CDFW. At a minimum, survey methods shall include the following:
o Search areas with flowering plants for foraging bumble bees. Observed foraging activity may indicate a nest is nearby, and therefore, the survey duration shall be increased when foraging bees are present.
o Watch any bumble bees present and observe their flight patterns. Attempt to track their movements between foraging areas and the nest. o Visually look for nest entrances. Observe burrow, any other underground cavities, logs, or other possible nesting habitat.
o Look for concentrated bumble bee activity.
o Listen for humming of nest colony.
o If bumble bees are observed, attempt to identify the species by taking a picture. o If foraging bees are present and a nest has not been found, floral resources within the project’s disturbance footprint may be carefully removed with hand-held tools to minimize foraging bee presence during project activities. The continuation of bumble bee activity once such floral resources are removed may be an indication that a nest is present.
o The biologist conducting the survey shall record when the survey was conducted, a general description of any suitable foraging habitat/floral resources present, a description of observed bumble bee activity, a description of any vegetation removed to facilitate the survey, and their determination of if the survey observations suggest a Crotch's bumble bee nest may be present or if construction activities could otherwise harm the species. The survey may be conducted immediately prior to construction granted all the above and below conditions are met.

If a Crotch's bumble bee is observed during the survey (not associated with a nest), or if any sign(s) of a bumble bee nest is observed and if it cannot be established the species present is not Crotch's bumble bee, then construction shall not commence until CDFW provides further guidance, which may include an additional survey by a bumble bee expert, waiting until the colony active season ends, obtaining take authorization, or other actions.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Roosting Bats
The following measures will be implemented at all parks included in the Plan Area to avoid potential impacts to roosting bats:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 269
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 71 • The removal or trimming of all trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 16 inches shall be conducted outside of the bat maternity season (October through March) whenever feasible. If this is not feasible, a bat roost assessment shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to tree removal to determine if roosting bats are present.
• If special-status bat species or potential maternity roosts of any species are detected during these surveys, the roost trees shall be protected, and a no-disturbance buffer of 100-feet shall be implemented around the active maternity roost until maternity activities have ceased.
• Irrespective of time of year, all felled trees should remain on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to chipping, off-site removal, or other processing to allow any bats to escape.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Special-status and Nesting Birds The following measures will be implemented at all parks included in the Plan Area to avoid potential impacts to special-status and nesting birds:
• To the extent feasible, project-related activities should be avoided during the nesting bird season, generally defined as February 1 – August 31. If project work must occur during the nesting bird season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days of ground disturbance or vegetation removal to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of nesting birds.

Surveys shall be conducted in all potential nesting habitat located at, and adjacent to, project work sites and in staging and storage areas. • If an active nest is located, a no disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. Active nest sites and protective buffer zones shall be designated as “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” where no project-related activities or personnel may enter until a qualified biologist determines that the young have fully fledged, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive (e.g., due to predation), and will no longer be adversely affected by the project. Suggested buffer zone distances differ depending on species, existing conditions, and nest placement and shall be determined and implemented in the field by a qualified biologist.
• The buffer shall remain in place until the nest fledges or otherwise becomes inactive as determined by the qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8. Aquatic Resources
Prior to issuance of grading permits or initiation of ground-disturbing activities for any projects that may impact potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a formal delineation of potential jurisdictional aquatic resources within the project site, including wetlands and other waters of the United States and/or State, consistent with current protocols of USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the CDFW, as applicable. The delineation report shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review and verification.

If jurisdictional aquatic resources are confirmed and would be directly or indirectly impacted by project implementation, the City shall consult with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW to determine (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 270
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 72 applicable permitting requirements and shall obtain all required authorizations prior to initiation of activities that could result in impacts. Such authorizations may include, but are not limited to, a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from USACE, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or Waste Discharge Requirements) from the RWQCB, and a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. from CDFW.

The City shall comply with all permit conditions and implement all avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures required by the regulatory agencies. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 271
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 73 4.2.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Eileen Barrow & Associates (EBA) prepared the following studies for the proposed Plan:
• Archival Study for the San Carlos Master Plan, February 2026 (Barrow 2026a) • Architectural History Evaluation of Two Buildings at Burton Park, February 2026 (Barrow 2026b)
• Architectural History Evaluation of the Community Building at Laureola Park, February 2026 (Barrow 2026c)
The Archival Study sought to identify existing documented historical and cultural resources within the Plan Area and included archival research at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resource Inventory System, and archival research of documents pertinent to the Plan Area through local and online libraries. The Architectural History Evaluation reports analyzed whether the Community Building at Laureola Park and two buildings at Burton Park are eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Prehistory
Current archaeological research indicates that the peopling of the Americas began with migrations from Siberia into North America during the late Pleistocene. Two primary migration routes are widely recognized: an interior route through Alaska and central Canada (circa 11,000– 10,500 BC), and an earlier route along the Pacific coastline (circa 12,600 BC) (Erlandson 2002, Fiedel 1987, 2000, Fladmark 1979, Wormington 1957). In California, numerous Paleo-Indian sites (approximately 11,500–9,000 BC) have been identified, particularly along the coastline and near former lakes and marshes. Due to sea-level rise since the early Holocene, many early coastal sites are likely submerged. Within the San Francisco Bay Area, archaeological investigations began in the early twentieth century and intensified in the 1940s and 1950s, leading to the development of regional cultural chronologies that document long-term patterns of Native American occupation.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 272
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 74 Over time, advances in archaeological method and dating techniques refined these regional chronologies. Early frameworks, such as the Central California Taxonomic System, were later supplemented by broader chronological models that incorporated radiocarbon dating and other scientific methods. The development of obsidian hydration analysis, particularly for Northern San Francisco Bay Area obsidian sources, further improved the ability to assign dates to archaeological sites. More recent efforts have focused on refining regional chronological schemes using radiocarbon-dated shell beads and other diagnostic artifacts. Although debate continues regarding the most appropriate temporal framework, current research reflects a long and complex history of Native American occupation in the San Francisco Bay Area spanning at least the past 13,000 years.

Regional History
Although Europeans first arrived in California in the sixteenth century, colonization did not begin in earnest until the late 1700s, when Spain sought to strengthen trade with the Philippines and prevent Russian expansion along the Pacific Coast (Alexander and Hamm 1916). In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá led an expedition north from San Diego along the California coast, traveling into what is now San Mateo County. This expedition marked the beginning of Spain’s formal colonization efforts in Alta California. Within several years, Spain established additional presidios and missions, including those at San Francisco and Santa Clara, placing the San Carlos area between Mission Santa Clara de Asís to the south and Mission San Francisco de Asís (Mission Dolores) to the north. Following Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, former mission lands were secularized and distributed as Mexican land grants. The San Carlos area became part of Rancho de las Pulgas, originally granted to José Darío Argüello, a military officer and former acting governor of Alta California (Hoover et al. 2002). After disputes regarding boundaries, approximately 32,240 acres were confirmed to members of the Argüello family in 1856, and the rancho lands were subsequently subdivided and sold.

The modern town of San Carlos developed later in the nineteenth century as the rancho lands were divided and transportation infrastructure expanded. Although the Pulgas ranch occupied the area earlier, San Carlos as a town dates to 1887 and grew in conjunction with the construction of the railroad in 1888. That same year, the San Carlos Land Company purchased acreage from Timothy Guy Phelps, who had acquired a substantial portion of Rancho de las Pulgas (Mahany and The San Carlos Villagers 1999). Early development focused on residential subdivision and basic infrastructure improvements. In the early twentieth century, town planning efforts formalized growth through platting, installation of utilities, and improvements to water and sewer systems. While construction slowed during the Great Depression, population growth continued, and by the onset of World War II the population had reached approximately 3,500 residents. Post-war suburban expansion further accelerated development, shaping San Carlos into part of the broader growth pattern of the San Francisco Bay Area.

REGULATORY SETTING
Cultural Resources
As set forth in Section 5024.1(c) of the Public Resources Code for a cultural resource to be deemed “important” under CEQA and thus eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), it must meet at least one of the following criteria:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 273
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 75 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California History and cultural heritage; or

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; or

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or

4. Has yielded or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Historic-era structures older than 50 years are most commonly evaluated in reference to Criterion 1 (important events), Criterion 2 (important persons), or Criterion 3 (architectural value).

To be considered eligible under these criteria, the property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its important qualities. Integrity is judged in relation to seven aspects including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Prehistoric and historic-era archaeological resources are commonly evaluated with regard to Criterion 4 (research potential).

Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA define procedures, types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15064.5(b) prescribes that project effects that would “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” constitute significant effects on the environment. Substantial adverse changes include both physical changes to the historical resource or to its immediate surroundings.

Archaeological Resources
Section 21083.2 of the CEQA guidelines also defines “unique archaeological resources” as “any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and show that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

This definition is equally applicable to recognizing “a unique paleontological resource or site.” CEQA Section 15064.5 (a)(3)(D), which indicates “generally, a resource shall be considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history,” provides additional guidance.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Archival Research and Records Search
EBA conducted a records search for each of the parks within the Plan Area to identify any existing documented historical resources. The results of the records search indicated that there are no documented cultural resources within any of the parks included in the Plan Area. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 274
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 76 Table 8. Summary of Cultural Resources Archival Record Search Results Park
Previously subjected
to cultural resources
study?
Cultural resources
documented within
the park?
Cultural resources
documented within
one quarter mile of
the park?
Arguello Park Yes, but did not
include fieldwork No No
Big Canyon Park No No No
Burton Park No No No
Cedar Street Park No No No
Chilton Park No No Yes
City Hall Dog Park No No Yes
Crestview Park No No No
Eaton Park No No No
Frank D. Harrington
Park No No Yes
Heather Dog Exercise
Area No No No
Highlands Park No No No
Hillcrest Circle Park Yes No No
Laureola Park No No Yes
North Crestview Park Yes No No
Rosek Park No No Yes
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood Park No No No
Vista Park No No No
Buried Site Sensitivity Assessment
Because Native American archaeological sites are sometimes buried by accumulated sediments, they cannot be identified by conventional archaeological surface surveys. While it is hard to predict exactly where buried sites may be located, the potential for an area to have buried archaeological sites can be estimated using models that account for conditions which are likely to host archaeological sites. For example, most sites tend to be located on a relatively level landform located near present or former water sources such as stream channels, perennial stream confluences, and former lakes, springs, or wetlands. In addition, many lowland areas of California have a general “geologic” potential to contain buried site because they contain sediments that were deposited after Native people first entered and occupied the region.

Using data such as the age of the landform and proximity to water sources, EBA implemented a model to determine the potential for buried sites within the Plan Area. The modeling indicated a Very Low or Low sensitivity for buried archaeological sites within all of the parks except Burton Park and Frank D. Harrington Park, which both have a Moderate (2-3%) potential for encountering buried archaeological sites.

Architectural History Evaluation
An Architectural History Evaluation was conducted for the community building at Laureola Park and the Kiwanis Community Building and former restroom at Burton Park to determine whether (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 275
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 77 the structures meet the criteria for inclusion on the National or California Registers. The results of the evaluation found that none of them met any of the four criteria for inclusion on the California Register as described in the Regulatory Setting section above. Therefore, no further recommendations for the treatment of these buildings were warranted.

PARKS MASTER PLAN GUIDELINES
• Preserve, reuse, or adapt historic and cultural features where feasible to reinforce a sense of continuity and local identity.
• Use signage and branding thoughtfully to reflect the historic, cultural, or natural character of the community and the site.
• Provide opportunities for interpretation of unique site features, such as wetlands, tree groves, historic elements, or cultural resources.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No Impact
The results of the cultural resources studies for the Plan found no previously documented historical resources within the Plan Area. Three built environment structures, including the community building at Laureola Park, the Kiwanis Community Building, and the former restroom at Burton Park were evaluated for historical significance; however, none of them met the criteria for listing on the California Register. Since there are no historical resources within the Plan Area, the proposed Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The results of the records search found no previously documented archaeological resources within the Plan Area. The majority of parks included in the Plan Area were found to have a Very Low or Low potential for buried archaeological resources; however, Frank D. Harrington Park and Burton Park both have a Moderate potential for buried archaeological resources. No improvements are proposed at Frank D. Harrington Park as part of the Plan because the park is currently being designed as part of the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, which is undergoing separate CEQA review. Improvements at Burton Park included in the Plan include installation of new wayfinding and trail signage, replacement of picnic tables and trash cans, construction of an accessible picnic area, irrigation and drainage improvements, and installation of water treatment systems to retrofit the water play element. These improvements, particularly the irrigation and drainage improvements and retrofit of the water play element, would involve ground-disturbing work which could result in a potentially significant impact to any unknown archaeological resources on-site.

The City shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 for future projects at Burton Park due to the heightened potential for buried archaeological resources to be present. This measure requires (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 276
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 78 that an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards review and assess any projects that are proposed to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground surface to determine if a subsurface study is warranted. In addition, ground-disturbing activities during construction at any of the parks included in the Plan Area could result in the discovery of unknown archaeological resources, which is a potentially significant impact under CEQA. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be implemented, which requires that, if buried materials are encountered during construction, all soil disturbing work shall be halted at the location of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can complete a significance evaluation of the find(s) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Local Native American tribes shall also be contacted regarding the find. If the archaeologist and/or local Native American tribe determine that the find includes historical, cultural, or tribal cultural resources, the City shall work with the archaeologist and tribe to determine a plan for protection, avoidance, or relocation of the resource.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, the proposed Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated There is one known area of reburied Native American remains located within the Plan Area. To ensure that the remains would be avoided by activities associated with the Plan, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would be implemented. This measure requires the City to ensure that the location of any reburied Native American remains within the Plan Area is documented with the Northwest Information Center and California Historical Resource Information System, and ensure that the area remains undeveloped in perpetuity. Implementation of this measure would ensure that the Plan would not impact any known human remains within the Plan Area.

Although unlikely, ground-disturbing activities within the Plan Area have the potential to encounter unknown human remains, which is a potentially significant impact. To comply with California Health and Safety Code §§ 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC § 5097, Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would be implemented, which outlines the procedures for the treatment of accidentally discovered human remains.

With implementation of this measure, the proposed Plan would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Archaeological Assessment
An archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall review and assess any projects that are proposed to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground surface at Burton Park, to determine if a subsurface study is warranted.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 277
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 79 Mitigation Measure CUL-2. Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources If an accidental find is made during ground-disturbing activities, all soil disturbance shall stop within 100 feet of the find until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can complete a significance evaluation of the find(s). If the qualified archeologist determines that the find is eligible for inclusion on the National or California Register, the archaeologist shall make recommendations for appropriate methods of treatment for the find, which shall be implemented by the City.

If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource may be a tribal cultural resource, the City shall consult with the culturally affiliated tribe(s), and a tribal representative shall be invited to evaluate the find and provide treatment recommendations. Treatment of tribal cultural resources shall be developed in consultation with the culturally affiliated tribe(s), with avoidance as the preferred method where feasible.

Potential treatment methods for resources may include, but would not be limited to, avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or project design or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. Any efforts shall be documented in a cultural resources report to be filed with the Northwest Information Center.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Native American Remains
The City shall hire a qualified archaeologist to document the location of any reburials within the Plan Area. The location of reburials shall be documented by the qualified archaeologist on Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and submitted to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information System. The City shall ensure that the location of the reburial will remain undeveloped in perpetuity, either through deed restrictions, fencing, or some other permanent form of protection. Consideration should be made in the future for the allowance of human reburials on City lands so that the location(s) can be kept protected.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Human Remains
California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and items of cultural patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction.

The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code §§ 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC § 5097. If remains are uncovered, grounddisturbing work shall halt within 100 feet of the find and the Lead Agency and County coroner shall be notified immediately. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or State lands (Health and Safety Code § 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code § 7050[c]). The Lead Agency and the professional archaeologist shall contact the Most Likely Descendent, as determined by the NAHC, regarding the remains. The Most Likely Descendant, in cooperation with the City, shall determine the ultimate disposition of the remains and any associated artifacts. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 278
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 80 4.2.6 Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Electricity in San Carlos is provided by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). PCE is a public, not-for-profit agency that serves San Mateo County and the City of Los Banos and is the default electricity provider for most residents in the County.

REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Carlos General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following policies related to energy:
• Policy EM-9.2: Support on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production such as solar panels, wind turbines and biomass facilities. • Policy EM-9.5: Design all new construction and major remodels of government agency buildings to relevant green building standards.
• Policy EM-9.6: Encourage new private construction and major remodels to be designed to meet or exceed Green Uniform Building Code requirements. • Policy EM-9.7: Implement energy efficiency in City owned and operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs and serve as a model for the community.

City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) The City of San Carlos CMAP is an update to the City’s 2009 Climate Action Plan (City of San Carlos 2021). In 2016, California enacted a new law requiring the state to reduce statewide emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The City’s CMAP identifies actions and performance targets to meet statewide goals by reducing the City’s emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Emissions reductions are targeted across six sectors, including energy, transportation and land use, off-road, waste, and water and wastewater (City of San Carlos 2021).
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 279
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 81 PARKS MASTER PLAN GUIDELINES
• Orient park spaces and community facilities to respond to solar exposure, prevailing winds, and local weather patterns to maximize natural light and ventilation. • Right-size building systems, including heating, cooling, and electrical systems, to improve efficiency and reduce energy use.
• Design simple and efficient building forms that are cost-effective to construct, operate, and maintain.
• Incorporate renewable energy readiness, including battery energy storage systems and roofs designed to accommodate photovoltaic panels on buildings, shade structures, and parking canopies.
• Reduce environmental impacts through material selection, prioritizing recycled or recyclable materials, locally sourced products, natural materials, and those with low embodied carbon.
• Design parks and facilities to minimize water use, incorporating efficient irrigation systems and utilizing reclaimed water sources where feasible. • Consider durability and maintenance needs early in the design process to ensure long-lasting facilities that are safe and cost-effective to maintain. • Provide efficient access for operations and maintenance, including appropriate routes for maintenance vehicles and service access.
• Plan for lifecycle replacement of aging infrastructure, including site furnishings, play equipment, and building systems, using durable, high-quality replacements. • Incorporate green infrastructure, such as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation landscapes, and permeable paving, to manage stormwater while supporting recreation and habitat restoration.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less-than-Significant Impact
The use of equipment and vehicles during construction of individual projects under the Plan would require the use of energy resources. The construction process would be designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. Specifically, equipment and fuel would not be used wastefully during construction due to the added expense associated with renting, maintaining, and fueling equipment. As such, energy and fuel would not be wasted or used inefficiently by construction equipment and vehicles.

Implementation of the Plan would be required to comply with applicable policies of the City’s General Plan, including Policy EM-9.6, which requires that all new construction and major remodels of government agency buildings to be designed in accordance with relevant green building standards, and Policy EM-9.7 which requires the City to implement energy efficiency in City-owned and operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs and serve as a model for the community.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 280
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 82 Further the proposed Plan contains implementing guidelines that aim to reduce energy use, such as incorporating energy-efficient heating, cooling, electrical, and water use fixtures into new development and remodels; considering maintenance and operational needs early in the design process to ensure longevity of projects; prioritizing recyclable or recycled materials in project design; and incorporating green infrastructure such as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation landscapes, and permeable paving.

Proposed improvements to community facilities would be required to comply with standards outlined in Title 24, Part 11 of the California Building Code, referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), as adopted by the City of San Carlos. The Plan identifies opportunities to increase energy efficiency of existing park facilities, including the electrification of the ACC and Youth Center. Therefore, implementation of the Plan not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less-than-Significant Impact
The CMAP is the local energy plan that includes policies and strategies to meet statewide emissions reductions targets. Therefore, any project that complies with this plan would also comply with statewide renewable energy and energy efficiency goals.

The CMAP contains multiple strategies to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Strategy 4 identifies opportunities for electrification in City facilities, such as replacing gas appliances with electric alternatives where feasible. Strategy 16 proposes strategies that support the reduction of GHG emissions through the development of walkable and bikeable public space.

Strategy 20 proposes replacing non-electric City fleet vehicles with electric ones when replacement of a vehicle is necessary.

The proposed Plan would not conflict with any relevant strategies of the CMAP. The Planpromotes incorporation of renewable energy into park improvement projects and includes implementing guidelines related to energy conservation and efficiency. The impact would be less than significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 281
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 83 4.2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 282
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 84 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Geology
The Plan Area lies in the central portion of the Coast Range geomorphic province that extends along the western edge of the state. The Coast Ranges are northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level. The Coast Ranges are generally composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary strata and are dominated by irregular, landslide-topography of the Franciscan Complex, a geologic assemblage of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks that formed in an ancient subduction zone along the California coast. The Coast Range geomorphic province is bounded by the Transverse Ranges in the south, the Klamath Mountains in the north, and the Great Valley in the east (CGS 2002).

Geologic and Soil Units
The geology of San Carlos consists mainly of unconsolidated sedimentary deposits underlain by sedimentary rock and Franciscan bedrock west of Alameda de las Pulgas. The western border of the City is underlain by the Cretaceous age Franciscan complex, which consists primarily of greywacke sandstone, conglomerate, and shale bedrock.

The transitional alluvial zone between the western hills and flatland deposits is underlain by conglomerate, sandstone, and mudstone of the Santa Clara formation. Lowland deposits underlie most of the City and consist of Holocene age alluvium (less than 11,000 years old), composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Some older Pleistocene age deposits with similar compositions are also present. Soils underlying the Plan Area include Urban land-Orthents, Los Gatos loam, Maymen gravelly loam, and Fagan loam (USDA National Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2025).

Faults
The Plan Area is within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is known as a seismically active region. Seismic activity can lead to various geological and seismic hazards, including fault displacement and rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, and avalanches. San Mateo County has numerous faults, and both local and external faults could impact the Project area.

The nearest major fault zone to the City is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the southwestern edge of the City (CGS 2026b). Crestview Park is the nearest park to the San Andreas Fault Zone, located approximately 1.44 miles northeast of the fault zone. The San Andreas Fault is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation.

While no portion of the Plan Area is within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation, seismic activity along the San Andreas Fault and other faults in the area could cause seismic shaking within the Plan Area. Other Alquist-Priolo Faults that could affect the Plan Area include the Seal Cove, San Gregorio, Denniston Creek, Calaveras, and Hayward Faults, located approximately 10.7, 12, 11, 21.3, and 14.5 miles away, respectively (CGS 2026b).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a-i, a-ii)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 283
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 85 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Directly of indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less-than-Significant Impact
As described in the Environmental Setting section above, none of the parks included in the Plan Area are located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the southwestern edge of the City. Rupture along this fault and other nearby faults in the area could cause strong seismic ground shaking in the Plan Area. The construction contractor for future projects under the Plan would be required to comply with all Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) requirements related to construction worker safety, which would reduce risks associated with fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking during construction to a less-than-significant level. Many projects would only require minor excavation and construction with hand tools, which would not result in any direct or indirect impact related to fault rupture or ground shaking. Therefore, the impact during construction of the proposed Plan would be less than significant.

Building improvements and construction of new buildings and structures under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the California Building Code as adopted by the City and additional stipulations set forth in the SCMC. These standards are in place to ensure that new buildings are seismically resilient and will not endanger occupants should seismic activity occur.

Therefore, with compliance with state and local regulations, operation of the Plan would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with earthquake fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking. The impact would be less than significant. a-iii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than-Significant Impact
Liquefaction primarily occurs in relatively loose, saturated, cohesionless soils that lose their strength and become incapable of supporting the weight of overlying soils or structures when subject to earthquake stresses. Portions of the Plan Area are within a CGS Liquefaction Zone, including Burton Park, City Hall Dog Park, Frank D. Harrington Park, San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park, Laureola Park, the Library, the Adult Community Center, the Youth Center, and the Kiwanis Building.(CGS 2026b).

Many of the park and facility improvements included in the proposed Plan would involve limited to no ground-disturbing work and therefore would not contribute to risks associated with liquefaction. These projects include activities such as rehabilitation and replacement of existing facilities, walkway and trail improvements, and irrigation and landscaping improvements.

General Plan Policy ESPS-11.6 and ESPS-12.2 require that the SCMC protects development from rising seawater and groundwater levels, which can increase risk of liquefaction. Additionally, Policy ESPS-1.1 requires that the City Building Official verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist, and that new structures be (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 284
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 86 designed to withstand the effects of seismically induced ground failure (City of San Carlos 2022).

Additionally, building improvements and construction of new buildings and structures under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the California Building Code as adopted by the City and additional stipulations set forth in the SCMC. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that proposed Master Plan improvements would not cause substantial adverse effects related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant.
a-iv) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Big Canyon Park, Heather Dog Exercise Area, Vista Park, Eaton Park, and parts of Arguello Park, Crestview Park, Highlands Park, and San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park are within a CGS Landslide Zone (CGS 2026b). Several park improvements are designed to reduce the risks associated with landslides. These include the installation of rolling dips and water bars on Eaton Park trails and implementation of a flood detention basin at Big Canyon Park. Additionally, the Plan does not propose the construction of any new habitable structures.

Future building improvements or construction of new structures under the proposed Plan would be subject to applicable General Plan policies and City regulations designed to protect people, life, and property from risks associated with landslides. General Plan Policy ESPS-1.1 requires that the City Building Official verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist. General Plan Policy 1.2 prohibits structural development in known areas where seismic and geologic hazards cannot be mitigated, and General Plan Policy 1.6 encourages the retrofitting of structures to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides (City of San Carlos 2022). Additionally, building improvements and construction of new structures under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the California Building Code as adopted by the City and additional stipulations set forth in the SCMC. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the proposed Plan improvements would not cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Some activities included in the proposed Plan would involve grading or replacement of impervious surface area that could result in soil disturbance and cause erosion (e.g., realignment of trails, paving of fire roads and walkways, construction of vista points, construction of new restrooms, and trenching for utilities and irrigation improvements). If no erosion control measures are in place, construction associated with the Plan could result in substantial soil erosion, which is a potentially significant impact. As described further in Section 4.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, construction activities associated with the Plan would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, which includes BMPs for erosion and pollutant control. Such measures that would help reduce erosion include installing perimeter controls (e.g., fiber rolls, silt fencing, gravel bags) to prevent sediment from leaving the work areas; covering or containing soil stockpiles and preventing tracking of sediment onto adjacent paved areas; and stabilizing disturbed soils if inactive for more than 14 days through mulch, erosion control blankets, hydroseeding, or similar methods.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 285
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 87 All future projects under the Plan would also be required to comply with the SCMC, which requires BMPs for stormwater runoff control be implemented throughout construction, and that all disturbed soils be stabilized via revegetation and seeding. In addition, future projects under the Plan that disturb over one acre of soil would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be implemented throughout construction activities.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 and compliance with local policies and regulations, the proposed Plan would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Portions of the Plan Area are located within mapped landslide and liquefaction hazard zones (CGS 2026b), as discussed in thresholds a-iii) and a-iv). Many of the improvements proposed in the Plan involve little to no ground disturbance and would occur in already developed areas and would not cause a geologic unit or soil to become unstable. Improvements that do require grading or structural foundations would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan, SCMC, and CBC regulations, which include review and verification of geotechnical and soil reports. By following existing regulations, implementation of the Plan would not exacerbate soil instability or result in on- or off-site geologic hazards. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less-than-Significant Impact
Expansive soils are found within portions of the City, including the western and northwestern hills. These areas are classified as having “low expansion potential” (City of San Carlos 2022).

While some sites within the Plan Area, including Vista Park, North Crestview Park, Crestview Park, and Heather Dog Exercise Area, are located near or within areas of the City mapped as having expansive soils, the improvements proposed at these parks do not include the construction of any new habitable structures which would be at risk due to expansive soils. Any future construction of buildings under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the CBC as adopted by the City, which would ensure that subsurface conditions and geotechnical constraints are accounted for in building design. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with expansive soils. The impact would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 286
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 88 Implementation of the Plan would not include any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. New restrooms proposed as part of the Plan would connect to existing wastewater infrastructure. No impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Paleontological resources (fossils) are the remains and traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood are found in geologic formations in which they were originally buried. Ground-disturbing construction activities, such as grading and excavation, have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy paleontological resources if proper measures are not in place.

Therefore, the City would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires that a paleontological resources awareness training be given to all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities for park improvement projects undertaken under the Plan. This measure also requires that, if paleontological resources are found, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall halt until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the resource and provide recommendations for its treatment. With implementation of this measure, the proposed Plan would not directly or indirectly destroy any unique paleontological resources. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The Plan Area consists of parks and recreational facilities that are not known to contain any unique geologic features. Therefore, the Plan would have no impact on unique geologic features.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Paleontological Resources
Prior to ground-disturbing activities for any project with ground-disturbing activities deeper than 12 inches under the Plan, the City shall retain a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards, to develop and conduct a Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Program for all construction personnel involved in grounddisturbing activities (including but not limited to grading, excavation, trenching, drilling, and utility installation).

The training shall be conducted prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and shall include, at a minimum:

1. A description of the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered within the project area;

2. Photographic examples of fossils and fossil-bearing sediments;

3. A summary of applicable federal, state, and local regulations protecting paleontological resources;

4. Identification of the procedures to follow in the event of a discovery; and

5. Contact information for the designated qualified paleontologist. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 287
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 89 All construction personnel shall be informed that if potential paleontological resources (e.g., fossilized bone, teeth, shell, leaf impressions, or unusual rock formations) are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately. The Construction Manager shall notify the City, who shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the find and recommend appropriate treatment measures consistent with SVP guidelines. Work in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until the paleontologist has determined that the resource has been appropriately assessed and any necessary mitigation has been implemented.

Documentation of the training, including attendance logs and training materials, shall be maintained by the construction contractor and made available to the City upon request. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 288
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 90 4.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GHGs are recognized by wide consensus among the scientific community to contribute to global warming/climate change and associated environmental impacts. The most common GHGs released from human activity are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2008). The primary sources of GHGs are vehicles (including planes and trains), energy plants, and industrial and agricultural activities (e.g., dairies and hog farms).

In the United States, the major sources of GHG emissions are transportation, electricity generation, and industrial activities (U.S. EPA 2022). These three sources are also the top contributors of GHG emissions in California (CARB 2022).

REGULATORY SETTING
Global Warming Solutions Act
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, adopted in 2006, established the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which requires the State to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Action. SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15 require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
As discussed in Section 4.2.3, Air Quality, San Carlos is under the jurisdiction of the BAAD. The BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Chapter 7 of the BAAD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines describes how to analyze plan-level climate impacts, such as GHG emissions.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 289
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 91 City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan The City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) was adopted in September 2021 as the City’s strategic plan to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to changing climate conditions. The CMAP includes an inventory of GHG emissions generated in the City for both community-wide and City operations and establishes GHG emissions reductions targets through the year 2050.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Projects included in the Plan would result in temporary construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions. The primary source of GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the plan would be use of equipment and heavy machinery and vehicle trips associated with both short-term construction and long-term maintenance activities. The improvements included in the Plan are small in size (i.e., potential projects do not have a large footprint) and scale (i.e., potential projects do not involve substantial expansion of existing park and recreational facilities or the development of significant new facilities) and are compatible with the existing active and/or passive recreational nature of the specific park type where the improvement would occur.

The BAAD defines screening criteria for operational GHG emissions for land use projects. If the project meets the applicable criteria, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions. For building development projects, the applicable criteria are:
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Projects under the proposed Plan would not include any natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. As described in Section 4.2.6, Energy, new construction under the Plan would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code as adopted by the City of San Carlos. Therefore, the Plan meets the first screening criteria.

The proposed Plan would not introduce any new stationary sources of GHG emissions; however, GHG emissions would be indirectly generated by operational emissions such as electricity and water use for new facilities such as restrooms and drinking fountains, and occasional maintenance vehicle trips. As described in Section 4.2.6, Energy, construction of many of the park projects would be done only with hand tools, and construction projects would be completed efficiently to avoid excess costs associated with energy use. Implementation of the Plan would be required to comply with applicable policies of the City’s General Plan, including Policy EM-9.6, which requires that all new construction and major remodels of government agency buildings to be designed in accordance with relevant green building standards, and Policy EM-9.7 which requires the City to implement energy efficiency in City-owned and operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs and serve as a model for the community. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 290
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 92 Further the proposed Plan contains implementing guidelines that aim to reduce energy use, such as incorporating energy-efficient heating, cooling, electrical, and water use fixtures into new development and remodels; considering maintenance and operational needs early in the design process to ensure longevity of projects; prioritizing recyclable or recycled materials in project design; and incorporating green infrastructure such as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation landscapes, and permeable paving. Therefore, the proposed Plan meets the second screening criteria.

The proposed Plan would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a substantial impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less-than-Significant Impact
According to the BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, long-range plans would have a less-thansignificant impact related to operational GHG emissions if they 1) demonstrate consistency with the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals, and 2) demonstrate consistency with the GHG Reduction Strategy in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As described in Section 4.2.6, Energy, the proposed Plan is consistent with the CMAP, which is the local GHG reduction strategy that is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As described above, the proposed Plan would comply with applicable City policies related to GHG emissions and energy use. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The impact would be less than significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 291
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 93 4.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 292
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 94 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A review of the State Water Resources Control Boards (SWRCB) GeoTracker database and the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database indicated that the former San Carlos High School, which is the current site of Highlands Park, is listed as a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup site (SWRCB 2026). The listing indicates that a LUST cleanup site at 2800 Melendy Drive was opened in 1997 and closed in 2003. According to the listing, an investigation was opened after an apartment building was built atop a UST containing waste oil with no verification that the UST had been removed. Investigators were unable to take soil or groundwater samples, or confirm whether the UST had been removed, without compromising the structural integrity of the apartment building. However, given the depth to groundwater near the site, investigators concluded that it was unlikely the UST would pose a risk to drinking water, human health, or environmental safety and the case was closed in 2003. None of the other parks within the Plan Area are included on a list of hazardous sites.

The closest airport to the City is the San Carlos Airport, located approximately two miles northeast of the City in unincorporated San Mateo County.

REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Carlos General Plan Environmental Safety and Public Services Element The City of San Carlos General Plan Environmental Safety and Public Services (ESPS) Element was updated in 2022, and proposes policies and actions pertaining to seismic hazards, flood hazards, wildland and urban fire, hazardous materials and waste, airport operations, and emergency and disaster preparedness (City of San Carlos 2022). The General Plan contains the following applicable policies related to hazards and hazardous materials:
• Policy ESPS-3.14: Provide adequate evacuation routes and access for fire and emergency service vehicles to all San Carlos areas.
• Policy ESPS-5.2: Require producers of and users of hazardous materials in San Carlos to conform to all local, State and federal regulations regarding the production, disposal and transportation of these materials.
• Policy ESPS-5.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria and standards enforcement. • Policy ESPS-5.11: Encourage the use of green building practices to reduce potentially hazardous materials in construction materials.
• Policy ESPS-6.1: Maintain land use and development in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport that are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria and guidelines contained in the adopted Airport/Land Use Compatibility Plan for the environs of San Carlos Airport, including noise, safety, height and avigation easement requirements.

San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MLHMP) assesses the likelihood of future hazard events and establishes mitigation protocols to address them.

According to the MLHMP, the highest risk factors for the City of San Carlos are sea level rise and climate change, floods, landslides, and wildfire (County of San Mateo 2021). (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 293
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 95 San Carlos Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted a Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for areas surrounding San Carlos Airport. The ALCUP seeks to promote compatibility between the San Carlos Airport and its surrounding environment, and addresses issues such as aircraft noise, safety of persons on the ground, airspace protection, and aircraft overflights. The ALUCP also gives the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission authority to review development plans and projects within Area of Influence B for the San Carlos Airport. The northern part of the City of San Carlos is within the ACLUP’s Airport Influence Area (AIA) B, which is the airport’s most immediate AIA and encompasses the area within a 9,000- foot radius of the airport. AIA B includes Burton Park, Laureola Park, Cedar Street Park, Frank D.

Harrington Park, Rosek Park, Hillcrest Circle Park, Arguello Park, City Hall Dog Park, San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park, the Adult Community Center, Library, the Kiwanis Building, the Laureola Building, and the Youth Center.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact
While many projects under the proposed Plan would only require the use of hand tools, construction of some individual projects would require the use and transport of typical construction-related hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, adhesives, and solvents.

Construction activities would be required to comply with numerous hazardous materials regulations and implement BMPs to ensure that hazardous materials are handled properly and do not pose a threat to worker safety or the environment. Workers who are handling hazardous materials are required to adhere to all OSHA and Cal/OSHA health and safety requirements.

Hazardous materials must be transported to and from the park sites in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and United States Department of Transportation regulations and disposed of in accordance with RCRA at a facility that is permitted to accept the waste. In addition, future projects under the Plan that would disturb over one acre of soil would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit under the NPDES, which requires that a SWPPP also be developed and implemented throughout project construction. With compliance with existing regulations, construction of projects under the proposed Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. The impact would be less than significant.

Implementation of the Plan would not introduce any new substantial risks associated with hazardous materials. Standard park operation involves the use of some hazardous materials, such as paints, fuels, herbicides, and fertilizers; however, implementation of the Plan would not cause a substantial increase in the use of these materials. Parks employees and contractors would continue to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 294
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 96 materials that are used routinely in park maintenance. Therefore, no impact related to hazardous materials would occur from operation of the proposed Plan. a) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less-than-Significant Impact
Seven schools are located within one-quarter mile of parks, open spaces, or facilities included in the Plan Area: Carlmont High School, Arundel Elementary School, Heather School, Arroyo School, Central Middle School, Sora International Preschool of San Carlos, and Learn and Play Montessori School & Childcare San Carlos.. As described above in Thresholds a) and b), implementation of the Plan would require the use of typical construction-related hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents. The handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials during construction would comply with all applicable OSHA, Cal/OSHA, and RCRA requirements. With compliance with these requirements, the Project would not pose an acute risk related to the handling of hazardous materials within the vicinity of a school. Operation of the proposed Plan would not include any new permanent uses of hazardous materials within the vicinity of a school or proposed school. While standard park maintenance does include the use of some hazardous materials, the Plan would not increase the level of use or substantially increase risks associated with the use of such materials. Therefore, the impact of the Project related to the use of hazardous materials within the vicinity of a school would be less than significant. b) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact
One site within the Master Plan, Highlands Park, is located adjacent to the former San Carlos High School, which is listed as a LUST cleanup site in the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database. Given that the site is in case-closed status, no environmental hazards are anticipated from implementation of proposed improvements at Highlands Park. Therefore, although a site included in the Plan is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to government Code Section 65962.5, the site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because the site was determined to be safe and the case was closed in 2003. The impact would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less-than-Significant Impact
14 parks and facilities within the Plan Area are located within AIA B of the San Carlos Airport ALUCP, including Burton Park, Laureola Park, Cedar Street Park, Frank D. Harrington Park, Rosek Park, Hillcrest Circle Park, Arguello Park, City Hall Dog Park, San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park, the Adult Community Center, Library, the Kiwanis Building, the Laureola Building, and the Youth Center. The San Carlos Airport ALUCP establishes a review process that allows the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission to evaluate proposed plans within AIA B for consistency with the ALUCP. Specifically, the ALUCP requires that all Facilities Master Plans within AIA B be referred to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for a (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 295
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 97 determination of consistency with the plan’s four compatibility factors (C/CAG 2015). The General Plan also requires proposed land use policy actions and related development plans within AIA B be submitted to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review (City of San Carlos 2009). Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP review process and the General Plan would ensure that the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The impact would be less than significant. d) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The applicable emergency response plans for the area are the San Mateo County MLHMP and the City’s General Plan Environmental Safety and Public Services Element. The Plan is designed to guide future improvements to San Carlos parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, and does not propose development that would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Proposed improvements would be contained within existing parks within the Plan Area and would not require any detouring of roadways or evacuation routes. In addition, the proposed Plan would include improvements to fire roads within some of the City’s parks which would be a beneficial impact related to emergency response and emergency evacuation. All future park improvements undertaken under the Plan would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies, municipal code requirements, and fire code requirements. Therefore, the implementation of the Plan would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The impact would be less than significant.
e) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less-than-Significant Impact
As described in Section 4.2.20, Wildfire, portions of the Plan Area are within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), including Crestview Park, North Crestview Park, Vista Park, and parts of Big Canyon Park. The Plan would not introduce any new land uses or increase use of the Plan Area in a way that would increase the risk of wildfire or the severity of the spread of wildfire. The Plan includes improvements to several fire roads within the Plan Area which would result in a beneficial impact related to wildland fires. The impact would be less than significant. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 296
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 98 4.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii)substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Plan Area is located in the Cordilleras Creek–Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries subwatershed (HUC 10-1805000409) within the larger San Mateo Creek–Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed (HUC 12-180500040902). The primary creeks within the region include Cordilleras Creek, Brittan Creek, Pulgas Creek, Belmont Creek, Laurel Creek, and Scotts Creek, which drain to the San Francisco Bay. The Plan Area is within the planning jurisdiction of the San (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 297
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 99 Francisco Bay RWQCB, who is responsible for regulating surface water and groundwater quality in the region.

REGULATORY SETTING
Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan
The Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan provides a comprehensive planning framework to address stormwater management, flooding and watershed conditions within the Pulgas Creek drainage area. The watershed drains portions of the San Carlos foothills and urbanized areas before discharging to the San Francisco Bay. The Watershed Plan evaluates existing drainage infrastructure, identifies locations susceptible to flooding and erosion, and recommends potential watershed management strategies to improve stormwater conveyance, reduce flood risk, and enhance water quality.

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin The Basin Plan is the master water quality planning document for the San Francisco Bay Basin, which is adopted and implemented by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of certain water bodies within the region, establishes narrative and numerical water quality standards, and contains regulatory programs and strategies to achieve water quality objectives. The Basin Plan is adopted under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and incorporated requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.

San Carlos Municipal Code
Chapter 13.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the SCMC requires reduction of pollutants in stormwater for any activities which may result in pollutants entering the City storm sewer system. Any person engaging in such activities must undertake all practicable measures to reduce such pollutants, implementing the following minimal requirements:

A. Littering.

1. No person shall throw, deposit, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or other discarded or abandoned objects, articles and accumulations in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public or private lot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant, except in containers or in lawfully established dumping grounds.

2. The occupant or tenant, or in the absence of occupant or tenant, the owner, lessee, or proprietor, of any real property in the City in front of which there is a paved sidewalk shall maintain said sidewalk free of litter to the maximum extent practicable.

3. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream or any other body of water in a park or elsewhere within the city.

B. Standard for Parking Lots and Similar Structures. Persons owning or operating a parking lot, gas station pavement or similar structure shall clean those structures as frequently and thoroughly as practicable in a manner that does not result in discharge of pollutants to the City storm sewer system.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 298
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 100
C. Best Management Practices for New Developments and Redevelopments. Any construction contractor performing work in the City shall endeavor, whenever possible, to provide filter materials at the catch basin to retain any debris and dirt flowing in to the City’s storm sewer system. City may establish controls on the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from new developments and redevelopments as may be appropriate to minimize the discharge and transport of pollutants.

D. Compliance with Best Management Practices. Where best management practices guidelines or requirements have been adopted by the City for any activity, operation or facility which may cause or contribute to the stormwater pollution or contamination, illicit discharges, and/or discharge of non-stormwater to the stormwater system, every person undertaking such activity or operation, or owning or operating such facility shall comply with such guidelines or requirements (as may be identified by the Director of Public Works) (Ord. 1149 § 1 (II 4), 1994).

Chapter 18.14 of the SCMC establishes the Stream Development and Maintenance Overlay District which intends to protect waterways and the health, safety, and welfare of City residents by establishing regulations for development adjacent to creeks. In accordance with this chapter, all new development shall be set back to a minimum of 25 feet from the top of bank of Cordilleras, Belmont, Brittan, and Pulgas Creeks within the City. Exceptions are granted for 1) storm drain outflows and associated drainage facilities, 2) vegetation removal or trimming for normal maintenance, or to facilitate drainage, prevent flooding, or permit adequate flow of water, 3) fill, grading, or excavating for purposes of low intensity, passive recreation or conservation uses with conditional use permit approval, and 4) minor restoration or maintenance necessary to prevent flooding, reduce siltation, remove debris, and minor weed abatement activity.

PARKS MASTER PLAN GUIDELINES
• Incorporate green infrastructure, such as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation landscapes, and permeable paving, to manage stormwater while supporting recreation and habitat restoration.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Water quality standards applicable to the Plan Area are established by the Basin Plan and implemented by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB through a variety of programs. Construction activities associated with the Plan would include ground-disturbing activities which could release sediment into waterways if not controlled properly, which is a potentially significant impact.

Future projects under the proposed Plan that would disturb over one acre of soil would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, which must identify potential pollutants sources and contain BMPs for erosion control and spill prevention control to prevent pollution and sedimentation of nearby waterways via stormwater runoff. In addition, the SCMC requires that BMPs be implemented for any activity that may result in stormwater pollution or contamination. All projects undertaken under the proposed Plan would be required to comply (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 299
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 101
with this City regulation by implementing erosion and sediment control measures throughout construction.

In addition, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 has been developed which contains minimum sediment and pollutant control measures for future projects under the plan that would disturb soils or require the use of materials that could pollute nearby waterways. Therefore, adherence with local and state regulations pertaining to water quality and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would reduce any potential impacts associated with Plan construction to a less-thansignificant level.

Operation of park improvement projects included in the Plan would not introduce any new sources of pollutants that could permanently degrade surface or groundwater quality. Proposed improvements include activities such as replacing park furniture and playground equipment, improving trails and walkways, installing irrigation features, and in some instances, constructing new facilities such as restrooms. These new and rehabilitated facilities would not introduce any new permanent point-source pollutants or increase pollutants in stormwater runoff. Therefore, the impact of Plan operation related to water quality would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Projects under the proposed Plan would not require the use of groundwater. While some water use would be required during construction and operation associated with the Plan, the City does not rely on groundwater for its municipal water supply. As described further in Section 4.2.19, Utilities and Service Systems, water in the City comes from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and runoff in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

The Plan Area is located in the San Mateo Plain Groundwater Subbasin, which is designated as a very low priority basin by DWR. According to the SWRCB, the two main sources of recharge for the basin are stream channel percolation and stormwater infiltration (SWRCB 2021). Therefore, projects that would substantially reduce either of these functions (e.g., through increasing impervious surface area in existing natural areas) could substantially impede groundwater recharge. Impervious surface areas constructed as part of the Plan would mainly be to replace existing impervious surfaces, such as the replacement of tennis courts, turf, and improvement of walkways. These projects would have no impact on groundwater recharge because the footprint of impervious surface area would remain the same. The proposed Plan would result in some minor increases in impervious surface area within the City’s parks to construct new facilities such as restrooms and fire roads. These increases in impervious surface would be minor and are not anticipated to substantially impede groundwater recharge by converting large plots of undeveloped land into paved surfaces.

Therefore, the proposed Plan would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be impeded. The impact would be less than significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 300
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 102
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Parks projects included in the Plan that are being evaluated as part of this IS/MND are not anticipated to substantially alter existing drainage patterns on any of the City’s parks. The majority of projects included in the Plan would replace or rehabilitate existing infrastructure in the same place as the structure to be replaced (e.g., trail improvement; replacement of signage, playground equipment, picnic tables; installation of shade structures), which would not alter any drainage patterns. Drainage improvements would primarily involve replacement or upgrades to existing drainage infrastructure and stormwater management systems with improved equipment and design standards rather than expansion of drainage facilities into new areas and therefore would not substantially modify existing drainage patterns. Some proposed improvements would include grading for new facilities, such as construction of an asphalt pump track at Arguello Park, construction of a vista point at Big Canyon and Arguello Park, installation of new restrooms at Big Canyon Park, construction of an expanded dog park at Heather Dog Exercise Area, and paving of trails and roads at Big Canyon Park and Eaton Park. The grading required to create these facilities would likely alter local drainage patterns slightly, but would not result in substantial erosion or siltation, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff that would exceed the capacity of stormwater systems. As stated in the Parks Master Plan Guidelines, the City would incorporate green infrastructure, such as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation landscapes, and permeable paving, to manage stormwater while supporting recreation and habitat restoration. In addition, Chapter 17.36 of the SCMC contains requirements for drainage facilities for all improvements within the City. Such requirements include design standards for drainage channels, conduits, and culverts, and the requirement to protect all exposed slopes resulting from grading operations via seeding and planting with shrubs and trees.

Therefore, with compliance with existing regulations, improvements included in the proposed Plan would not result in a substantial impact related to drainage changes. The impact would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less-than-Significant Impact
One small portion of the Plan Area along the southeastern border of Burton Park is within a flood zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). No portion of the Plan Area is within a tsunami or seiche zone (CDOC 2026b). Therefore, activities at the majority of parks included in the plan would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. As described above in Threshold a), construction associated with the proposed Plan would be required to implement pollution and sediment control measures described in Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 and comply with local and State regulations pertaining to pollution and sediment (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 301
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 103
control. Compliance with these measures would ensure that park improvements at Burton Park would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. The impact would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The applicable water quality control plan for the Plan Area is the Basin Plan, which identifies specific beneficial uses and water quality objectives and beneficial uses for surface waters in the region. As described above in Threshold a), compliance with local and State regulations pertaining to stormwater runoff would ensure that projects under the proposed Plan would not violate any water quality objectives established in the Basin Plan. The impact would be less than significant.

The Plan Area is also within the planning area of the Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan. The proposed Plan is consistent with the goals and recommendations of the Watershed Plan and includes native plant palettes that are consistent with the Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan.

The Plan Area is located in the San Mateo Plain Groundwater Subbasin, which is designated by DWR as a very low priority basin. Only medium- and high-priority basins are required to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and prepare Groundwater Management Plans under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Therefore, there is no applicable sustainable groundwater management plan for the Plan Area, and the proposed Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1. Erosion and Pollution Control Measures Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities for all future projects under the Plan, the City shall ensure that erosion and sediment control measures to minimize soil erosion are implemented. These measures are aimed to reduce sedimentation and pollutant discharge during construction activities associated with trail maintenance, paving, court and turf replacement, trenching for utilities, and related improvements.

The following measures shall be implemented, at a minimum:

1. Limit disturbance to the minimum area necessary and clearly delineate construction boundaries.

2. Install perimeter controls (e.g., fiber rolls, silt fencing, gravel bags) to prevent sediment from leaving the work areas.

3. Protect storm drain inlets with appropriate sediment control devices.

4. Stabilize disturbed soils if inactive for more than 14 days through mulch, erosion control blankets, hydroseeding, or similar methods.

5. Cover or contain soil stockpiles and prevent tracking of sediment onto adjacent paved areas.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 302
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 104

6. Backfill and compact trenches promptly and restore disturbed areas following utility installation.

7. Provide designated concrete washout areas and prevent construction materials, slurry, or debris from entering storm drains.

8. Restore disturbed areas to pre-project conditions and stabilize prior to the onset of the rainy season.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 303
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 105

4.2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Plan Area includes parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities across Park (PK), Open Space (OS), and Public (P) zoning districts, which include allowable uses such as government offices, public parks and recreation facilities, public safety facilities, and utilities. The General Plan land use designations applicable to the Plan Area are Park, Open Space, and Public (City of San Carlos 2025b).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The Plan Area consists of existing parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities throughout the City. Improvements would occur within established public parks and facilities and would include upgrades to amenities, trail and pathway enhancements, and accessibility improvements. The Project does not include construction of infrastructure that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The proposed Plan is consistent with existing land use designations and zoning regulations. Parks included in the Plan Area are designated as Park, Open Space, or Public in the General Plan, and are zoned as PK, OS, or P, which allow for park and recreational uses. As described in Section

4.2.4, Biological Resources, the proposed Plan would comply with all applicable policies of the San Carlos General Plan pertaining to biological resources. The impact would be less than significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 304
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 106

4.2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The State has not identified any sites in the City of San Carlos with known mineral resources (CGS 2026b). The City’s 2045 General Plan Reset EIR states that there are no known mineral resources within the City (City of San Carlos 2025a).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact
There are no known mineral resources that are of value to the region or state within the City. The City’s General Plan does not identify any mineral resources within the City’s boundaries (City of San Carlos 2009). Therefore, the proposed Plan would not impact any mineral resources that are of local or regional value. No impact would occur.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 305
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 107

4.2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background Information on Noise
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and can have an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), which is a logarithmic scale. Decibels describe the purely physical intensity of sound based on changes in air pressure but cannot accurately describe sound as perceived by the human ear since the human ear is only capable of hearing sound within a limited frequency range. For this reason, a frequency-dependent weighting system is used, and monitoring results are reported in A-weighted decibels (dBA). Decibels and other acoustical terms are defined in Table 9.

A typical method for determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is by comparing it to existing conditions. The following describes the general effects of noise on people:
• A 3-dBA increase is considered barely noticeable.
• A 5-dBA increase is considered clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. • A 10-dBA increase is perceived as a doubling in loudness. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 306
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 108
Table 9. Definition of Acoustical Terms

TERM DEFINITION
Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.

Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound on a logarithmic scale. Sound described in decibels is usually referred to as sound or noise “level.” This unit is not used in this analysis because it includes frequencies that the human ear cannot detect.

A-Weighted Sound
Level (dBA)
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter deemphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound, in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear, and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted.

Maximum Sound Levels
(Lmax)
The maximum sound level measured during a given measurement period.

Equivalent Noise
Level (Leq)
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. For this CEQA evaluation, Leq refers to a 1-hour period unless otherwise stated.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL)
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to sound levels during the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels during the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise
Level (Ldn)
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels during the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Ambient Noise Level The existing level of environmental noise at a given location from all sources near and far.

Vibration Decibel (VdB) A unit describing the amplitude of vibration on a logarithmic scale.

Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV)
The maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal.

Root Mean Square
(RMS) Velocity
The average of the squared amplitude of a vibration signal.

Sources: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 1998, Federal Transit Administration 2018 Background Information on Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is appropriate for evaluating potential damage to buildings, but it is not suitable for evaluating human response to vibration because it takes the human body time to respond to vibration signals. The response of the human body to vibration is dependent on the average amplitude of a vibration. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is more appropriate for evaluating human response to vibration. PPV is (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 307
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 109
normally described in inches per second (in/sec) and RMS is often described in vibration decibels (VdB).

Existing Ambient Noise Conditions
The major noise sources in San Carlos are vehicular traffic on major roadways, railroad operations along the Caltrain corridor, and the San Carlos Airport. Noise monitoring conducted in 2009 for the City’s General Plan update indicated noise levels ranging from 57 to 69 Ldn, measured at 75 feet from the center of the roadway, along major roadway corridors in the City.

Major roadways in the City include El Camino Real, Holly Street, Old County Road, Industrial Road, San Carlos Avenue, Brittan Avenue, Howard Avenue. Dartmouth Avenue, Club Drive, and Alameda de las Pulgas.

Several parks included in the Plan Area are directly adjacent or very near to the City’s major roadways. Laureola Park is located at 503 Old County Road, with entrances on Old County Road and Holly Street. San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park and City Hall Dog Park are located directly adjacent to San Carlos Avenue, adjacent to the San Carlos Caltrain Station, which also sits along the busy El Camino Real corridor. Other parks in the Plan Area are accessed from interior residential streets rather than major arterials; however, they may still be within a short distance of those roadways in a neighborhood context.

REGULATORY SETTING
San Carlos General Plan
The City’s General Plan establishes allowable noise levels for various land use types within the City. For outdoor sports and recreation, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, noise levels up to 65 Ldn are always acceptable, levels of 65 to 80 Ldn are conditionally acceptable, and levels greater than 80 Ldn are unacceptable.

The City’s General Plan Noise Element contains the following applicable policies related to noise:
• Policy NOI-1.1: Use the Noise and Land Compatibility Standards shown in Figure 9-1, the noise level performance standards in Table 9-1 and the projected future noise contours for the General Plan shown in Figure 9-3 and detailed in Table 9-2, as a guide for future planning and development decisions.
• Policy NOI-1.4: Require a detailed acoustic report in all cases where noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL Ldn or greater. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.
• Policy NOI-1.5: Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the noise level standards, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered after practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project. • Policy NOI-1.8: During all phases of construction activity, reasonable noise reduction measures shall be utilized to minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels.
a. Construction activities shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 308
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 110
San Carlos Municipal Code
Chapter 9.30, Noise Control, of the SCMC establishes City policy regarding ambient noise and limitations on excess noise. A permit is generally required for any activity that would exceed allowable noise levels; however, per Section 9.30.070, construction activities are exempt from obtaining a permit, so long as they are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise-related construction activities may occur on Sundays and on City holidays as noted in Section 9.30.070.

Section 18.21.060 of the SCMC states that no noise shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernable by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. However, vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel are exempt from this requirement.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less-than-Significant Impact
Construction of individual projects under the proposed Plan would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the park where work is occurring. While a majority of projects would only require the use of hand tools, some projects would necessitate the use of heavy machinery that would generate noise, such as forklifts, impact drills, compacting equipment, jackhammers, excavators, and demolition hammers. The applicable noise standards for the Plan Area are established by the San Carlos General Plan and SCMC. For outdoor sports and recreation and neighborhood parks and playgrounds, noise levels up to 65 Ldn are always acceptable, levels of 65 to 80 Ldn are conditionally acceptable, and levels greater than 80 Ldn are unacceptable. Construction activities undertaken as part of the Plan may generate noise levels in excess of 80 Ldn intermittently throughout the workday. The SCMC states that a permit is generally required for any activity that would exceed allowable noise levels; however, construction activities are exempt from obtaining a permit as long as they are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

All construction activities associated with the Plan would occur during the City’s allowable construction hours; therefore, no conflict with the City’s noise ordinance or allowable noise levels would occur as a result of construction activities.

Once operational, the park enhancements and improvements identified in the Plan that are within the scope of this IS/MND would have little to no potential to generate noise levels that exceed the limits identified by the City’s General Plan. Typical noise emanating from the City’s parks include:
• Human voices from conversation, celebrations, recorded music, etc. • Children laughing and shouting
• Whistles, cheering, and other noises associated with organized and casual sports activities
• Dogs barking
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 309
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 111
• Equipment operations from mowers, landscaping equipment, etc. • Vehicle trips to and from parks
These noise sources are not substantial nor prolonged and are part of typical park environments.

Most of the proposed improvements included in the Plan would enhance existing park infrastructure via replacement or rehabilitation (e.g., replacement of park furniture and playground equipment, trail improvements, improving ADA accessibility), or would add minor new accessory facilities that are cohesive with the existing park use (e.g., construction of restrooms and drinking fountains). These improvements would not change the existing noise environment at a park because they would not substantially alter the recreational amenities available at a park, substantially change the capacity of the park to accommodate visitors, or add a new permanent source of noise to the park.

Therefore, operation of the proposed Plan would not generate noise levels that would exceed local noise standards. The impact would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less-than-Significant Impact
Construction of some projects under the Plan would require the use of equipment which would generate groundborne vibration, such as jackhammers, vibratory tampers, and vibratory compactors. Any vibration generated by construction activities would be temporary and intermittent and would occur only during the City’s allowable construction hours. According to the SCMC, construction activities are exempt from the City’s restrictions on vibration. Therefore, construction associated with the proposed Plan would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The impact would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
As described in Section 4.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, portions of the Plan Area are within the San Mateo County ALUCP. However, no portion of the Plan Area is located within the airport noise contours as shown on Figure 9-2 of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, construction or operational activities associated with the proposed Plan would not expose people residing or working in the Plan Area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 310
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 112

4.2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The population of the City of San Carlos has remained relatively constant for the last 15 years.

As of 2024, the population of the City of San Carlos was approximately 29,403 (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). According to the City’s Housing Element, the City has approximately 12,385 housing units and plans to develop 2,735 more units by 2031 (City of San Carlos 2023).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact
The proposed Plan includes improvements to 17 existing parks, open spaces, and community facilities. The purpose of the Plan is to develop a long-range vision and implementation strategy for the City’s parks and recreation system. These improvements are intended to serve the community members that already utilize parks within the City and are not anticipated to encourage population growth in the City outside of what has already been identified by the City’s Housing Element. Many of the improvements included in the Plan are rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, trail upgrades, and installation of accessory infrastructure such as shade structures, restrooms, and updated playground equipment. These improvements are not anticipated to draw residents into the City of San Carlos. Moreover, the surrounding municipalities of Belmont and Redwood City also offer various parks and recreational facilities, and regional parks including Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and Edgewood Park and Natural Preserve, are also available to residents. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not induce substantial or unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 311
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 113
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The proposed Plan would not displace any people or housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur related to displacement of existing people or housing.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 312
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 114

4.2.15 Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessthanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fire protection services within the Plan Area are provided by the San Carlos and Redwood City Fire Department (SCRCFD), which serves the Cities of San Carlos and Redwood City and the unincorporated neighborhood of North Fair Oaks. The SCRCFD includes six fire stations, two of which are in San Carlos.

Police protection services in the Plan Area are provided by the San Carlos Police Bureau, which is a substation of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The San Carlos Police Bureau is located at 600 Elm Street at San Carlos City Hall.

Seven schools are located within one-quarter mile of parks, open spaces, or facilities within the Master Plan: Carlmont High School, Arundell Elementary School, Heather School, Arroyo School, Central Middle School, Sora International Preschool of San Carlos, and Learn and Play Montessori School & Childcare San Carlos.

The Plan Area comprises 17 City-owned parks and community facilities, including the San Carlos Library, the San Carlos Youth Center, and the Adult Community Center. The full list of parks and recreational facilities included in the Plan Area is provided in Table 1.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 313
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 115
• Fire Protection?
• Police Protection?
• Schools?
No Impact
The Plan Area would be served by existing fire and police protection and school facilities. As described in Section 4.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not cause population growth which would result in the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection or school facilities. No impact would occur.
• Parks?
• Other Public Facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Plan Area comprises 17 parks and recreational facilities and community facilities. Proposed improvements to these facilities could result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, which are discussed throughout this IS/MND. Potential impacts could occur related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, and tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.2.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, all potential impacts associated with the Plan would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures included in this IS/MND.

Therefore, the proposed Plan would not result in a significant impact on the environment due to the provision of new or physically altered parks or other public facilities. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 314
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 116

4.2.16 Recreation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Plan Area encompasses 17 parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities throughout San Carlos, totaling 186.4 acres. The Plan Area comprises three community parks, five neighborhood parks, five mini-parks, two special use parks, two open spaces, and five facilities. Arguello Park is the largest park, totaling 21 acres, while Eaton Park is the largest open space, totaling 65.71 acres. Community facilities include the Youth Center, the Adult Community Center, the Library community room, the Kiwanis Building, and the Laureola Building. A detailed description of the recreational facilities included in the Plan Area can be found in Section 2.0 Project Information, and Section 3.0, Project Description.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The purpose of the proposed Plan is to guide long-term improvements to parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. The Plan includes rehabilitation and enhancement of existing parks and recreational facilities and amenities. The Plan does not introduce new land uses or residential development that would substantially increase the demand for recreational facilities.

Further, improvements outlined in the Plan are not anticipated to draw residents from adjacent cities, as they have their own parks and recreational infrastructure. Improvements are intended to modernize facilities, increase accessibility, and rehabilitate aging park infrastructure, which would benefit the physical character and durability of the sites within the Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The impact would be less than significant. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 315
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 117
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Plan Area comprises 17 parks and recreational facilities and community facilities. Proposed improvements to these facilities could result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, which are discussed throughout this IS/MND. Potential impacts could occur related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, and tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.2.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, all potential impacts associated with the Plan would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures included in this IS/MND.

Therefore, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities under the proposed Plan would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 316
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 118

4.2.17 Transportation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Pedestrian Facilities
The San Carlos parks and recreation system includes approximately seven miles of citymanaged trails, including ADA-accessible paths and natural-surface hiking trails.

Bicycle Facilities
Bikeways are typically classified into four categories:
• Class I Multi-Use Path: A completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. • Class II Bike Lane: A striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
• Class III Bike Route: Signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
• Class IV Bikeway: Also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

San Carlos has over 20 miles of existing bikeway facilities, including 4.1 miles of shared use paths, 10.8 miles of Class II bicycle lanes, and 7.1 miles of Class III bicycle routes. The City currently does not have any Class IV bikeways.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 317
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 119
Transit Facilities
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides local and regional public transit service within San Carlos and among surrounding communities. There are four SamTrans routes within the City of San Carlos that provide access to local parks, including routes 295, 260, 61, and 73. Additionally, the San Carlos CalTrain station is located on El Camino Real, approximately 546 feet from Laureola Park and approximately 1,296 feet from City Hall Dog Park.

REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Carlos General Plan
The City of San Carlos Circulation and Scenic Highways (CSH) Element includes the following relevant policies and actions related to transportation:
• Policy CSH-2.2: Provide for adequate pedestrian bicycle facilities as viable transportation modes in San Carlos, as recommended in the San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
• Policy CSH-2.3: Access to public transportation facilities should be convenient and designed to encourage use of public transit.
• Policy CSH-3.3: Support city-wide efforts to reduce vehicular trips within and through the community.
• Policy CSH-3.12: The City should preserve its existing alley and pedestrian path systems to the maximum extent feasible.
• Action CSH-3.5: The City shall coordinate with adjacent communities and responsible agencies to provide an interconnected system of pedestrian ways, trails, bikeways and transit routes.
• Policy CSH-5.1: Connect neighborhoods, school sites, activity centers, transportation centers, recreational sites and other important community amenities with sidewalks, pedestrian paths, trails and bikeways.
• Policy CSH-7.7: Public trails should be located and designed so that they serve the needs of the public while minimizing private property impacts. • Policy CSH-7.8: The local public path and trail system should be linked with existing private and regional systems and the road system.
• Action CSH-7.1: The local trails system should be documented and enhanced as part of the city’s circulation system.

City of San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes a long-term vision for improving walking and bicycling in the City, and provides strategies to develop walking and bicycling networks. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan proposes three goals, including maintaining and expanding the pedestrian and bicycle network, increasing support for walking and bicycling, and improving access and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists (City of San Carlos 2020). (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 318
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 120
San Carlos Hillside Trails Plan
The Hillside Trails Plan provides guidance for the development of identified existing hillside trails within the City and serves as the guiding document for the design and construction of future trails. The Plan establishes criteria for hillside trail drainage, materials, design, construction, and signage (City of San Carlos 2012).

Caltrans Multimodal System Planning
Caltrans District 4 Multimodal System Planning (System Planning) has several concurrent planning efforts within the vicinity of the Parks Master Plan. System Planning is currently preparing a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) along all of State Route 82 within San Mateo County, called the State Route 82 North CMCP. The purpose of this document will be to identify key needs and challenges in the corridor and develop a balanced and equitable transportation system that integrates multimodal mobility choices. In addition, this CMCP is being prepared in close coordination with the SamTrans-led, multi-agency Grand Boulevard Initiative concurrently being conducted with all local cities along State Route 82 within San Mateo County. Lastly, SamTrans is also leading the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan, a planning project being coordinated with the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City. The Central El Camino Real Plan is aimed at providing multimodal transportation enhancements along this 8.5-mile portion of State Route 82.

PARKS MASTER PLAN GUIDELINES
• Integrate parks and facilities with surrounding circulation networks, including sidewalks, streets, trails, and bicycle routes. Provide multiple access points where appropriate, and design entries with distinctive features that clearly welcome visitors into the space.
• Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access by providing clear, direct, and well-connected routes between parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities that emphasize safety and ease of use.
• Use low-profile or transparent landscaping near walkways and buildings to minimize visual barriers and improve visibility.
• Clearly mark park entrances, pathways, and key destinations using signage, lighting, and paving.
• Incorporate pedestrian-scaled lighting and wayfinding elements to improve visibility and nighttime comfort.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less-than-Significant Impact
The Plan intends to improve connectivity and provide opportunities for non-vehicular transportation through improvements to trail, cycling, and walking infrastructure. Improvements proposed within the Plan include enhanced wayfinding signage, pathway resurfacing, and landscaping maintenance to improve visibility. The Plan would create a pedestrian connection (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 319
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 121
across Crestview Drive from Vista Park to North Crestview Park through a standard painted striped crosswalk. The Plan also proposes several accessibility improvements, including an ADAaccessible trail segment in Big Canyon Park and ADA-accessible pathways at Burton Park. These improvements are aligned with those of System Planning’s regional projects, including the State Route 82 North CMCP, Grand Boulevard Initiative, and Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan.

The City will make efforts to coordinate with Caltrans and SamTrans to ensure the Parks Master Plan is consistent with these ongoing planning efforts. Therefore, the proposed Plan would be consistent with and would not obstruct other local or regional policies, programs, and ordinances addressing the circulation system. The impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-than-Significant Impact
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) describes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For land use projects, VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. In accordance with the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Section 21099 of the PRC states that the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote: (1) reduction of GHG emissions; (2) development of multimodal transportation networks; and (3) a diversity of land uses. Section 21099 subdivision (b)(1) further directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and develop criteria for determining significance. The OPR identifies a screening threshold for small, land use projects as a project that generates or attracts fewer than 110 trips per day. Projects that generate fewer trips than this threshold may be assumed to cause a lessthan-significant transportation impact (OPR 2018).

The Plan focuses on improvements to existing local parks and recreational facilities and encourages the development of multimodal transportation networks through bike and pedestrian infrastructure enhancements. Improvements outlined in the Plan are intended to serve the existing local population. The Plan does not include development of large-scale or high-density land uses that would draw new significant traffic. Replacement of the Laureola Building and Kiwanis Building may generate VMT; however, these projects would undergo environmental review under a separate process because plans are not yet available. Specific Plan elements, such as the development of the trail network at Big Canyon Park and the installation of a pedestrian connection across Crestview Drive from Vista Park to North Crestview Park, are designed to reduce vehicular trips, facilitate active transportation, and increased pedestrian safety consistent with the goals of Section 21099 of the PRC. Construction activities associated with any project under the plan would not generate over 110 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not generate a substantial amount of new vehicle trips. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less-than-Significant Impact
The Plan consists of improvements within existing parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, and includes upgrades to pathways and trails, replacement of park amenities, and minor circulation enhancements such as pedestrian access improvements and a new crosswalk across Crestview Drive to North Crestview Park. The Project does not include construction of new public (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 320
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 122
roadways that would introduce hazardous geometric design features. Additional parking stalls at Highlands Park would not require new curb cuts. Improvements to roadway infrastructure, such as pathway resurfacing, are intended to improve safety and access. Improvements would occur within existing park sites and would be designed in accordance with applicable City building and engineering standards, accessibility requirements, and safety guidelines. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The impact would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Proposed improvements within the Master Plan are designed to accommodate and improve emergency access in the Project area. Improvements to Eaton Park and Crestview include improving the fire road with durable surfacing and eliminating trail head erosion issues for maintained vehicular access. Additionally, improvements to Arguello Park include paving the fire road along Sheldon Avenue to provide a multi-use maintenance, walking, and emergency access path. Implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to result in any construction-related or permanent road closures that would impede emergency access. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access. The impact would be less than significant. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 321
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 123

4.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1?
In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
At the time of European contact, the Plan Area was inhabited by Costanoan-speaking peoples, commonly referred to as the Ohlone (Levy 1978). Their territory encompassed the San Francisco Peninsula, the eastern and southern margins of San Francisco Bay, and extended south to the Monterey Bay region (Kroeber 1925, Levy 1978). The Ohlone lived in autonomous tribelets occupying defined territories that included permanent villages and associated seasonal camps and resource procurement sites. They relied on a diverse array of resources, including acorns, seeds, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and terrestrial game, and participated in regional trade networks involving obsidian and other goods; clamshell disk beads functioned as a medium of exchange. The establishment of Spanish missions between 1777 and 1797 profoundly disrupted Ohlone lifeways, resulting in dramatic population decline due to disease, cultural dislocation, and demographic collapse. Recent archaeological studies have shown that Native communities actively maintained cultural persistence through adaptation, challenging the narrative of their disappearance and demonstrating their continued connection to the land and cultural traditions.

REGULATORY SETTING
State of California Public Resources Code
Section 21074 of the PRC defines historical resources related to tribal cultural resources. a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 322
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 124
a. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

B. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The City sent letters via email and U.S. Postal Service to appropriate representatives of each tribal group associated with the Plan area on January 9, 2026. Two responses were received from Kanyon Sayers-Roods of the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People and from Bernadette Quiroz of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

A consultation meeting was held with City representatives and Kanyon Sayers-Roods of the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People on March 19, 2026. The City and tribal representatives discussed the proposed Plan, went over the findings of the Cultural Resources Study, and discussed mitigation measures for the treatment of tribal cultural resources. As a result of consultation, measures including cultural resources sensitivity training were incorporated into the Project as Mitigation Measure TCR-1.

A consultation meeting was held with City representatives and Bernadette Quiroz of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe on April 15, 2026. The City and tribal representatives discussed the proposed Plan, went over the findings of the Cultural Resources Study, and discussed mitigation measures for the treatment of tribal cultural resources. As a result of consultation, the requirement for tribal cultural monitoring for some future projects under the Plan was incorporated as Mitigation Measure TCR-2.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 323
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 125
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The results of the Cultural Resources Study indicated that there are no documented tribal cultural resources within the Plan Area (Barrow 2026a). However, as described in Section 4.2.5, Cultural Resources, there is one known area of reburied Native American remains located within the Plan Area. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would be implemented, which requires the City to ensure that the location of reburied Native American remains within the Plan Area is documented with the Northwest Information Center and California Historical Resource Information System, and ensure that the area remains undeveloped in perpetuity.

The City sent letters to representative of local Native American groups affiliated with the Plan Area to solicit input regarding tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Plan. As described above, a response was received from the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. No other tribal cultural resources were identified within the Plan Area; however, there is potential for archaeological resources, which may be tribal cultural resources, to be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. As a result of tribal consultation, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and TCR-2 were incorporated into the IS/MND. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires that a cultural resources sensitivity training be conducted for any projects that involve ground-disturbing activities 12 inches below the ground surface. Mitigation Measure TCR-2 requires that a Native American monitor be present for future projects under the Plan that have potential to result in substantial disturbance of soils, and thus may uncover unknown tribal cultural resources. With implementation of these measures, along with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, and CUL-4, the proposed Plan would not result in a substantial adverse effect to tribal cultural resources. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Cultural Resources Identification Training For future projects under the Plan that would involve ground-disturbing activities more than 12 inches below the ground surface on undeveloped land, construction crews shall be trained in “basic archaeological and tribal resources identification” and have access to a cultural resources awareness and sensitivity alert sheet. The alert sheet shall photographically depict indicators of archaeological sites and artifacts and clearly outline the procedures in the event of new discovery. These procedures shall include temporary work stoppage (i.e., a stop work order) of all ground disturbance, short-term physical protection of features and artifacts and their context, and immediate advisement of the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, and City representatives. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 324
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 126
Mitigation Measure TCR-2. Tribal Monitoring
For ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Plan, the City shall retain a Native American monitor from a culturally affiliated tribe to monitor construction activities that have the potential to result in substantial disturbance of soils. Tribal monitoring shall be required for projects involving substantial ground disturbance, including but not limited to construction of new structures, replacement or expansion of existing buildings, installation of park facilities requiring continuous or large-area excavation, and other activities that extend beyond minor surface improvements.

Tribal monitoring shall not be required for limited, low-intensity ground-disturbing activities such as installation or replacement of fencing or signage, landscaping and tree planting, utility trenching, or similar minor improvements, provided that such activities do not involve extensive excavation or disturbance of previously undisturbed soils.

The requirement for tribal monitoring shall be determined by the City on a project-by-project basis depending on the nature, extent, and location of proposed ground disturbance. In the event that tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, all work within 100 feet of the find shall halt, and the lead agency shall notify the appropriate tribe(s). A qualified tribal representative shall participate in the evaluation of the find and recommend appropriate treatment measures.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 325
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 127

4.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessthanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Water
Water in the City is supplied by the California Water Service (Cal Water), which purchases water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Approximately 85 percent of SFPUC’s supply comes from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, which collects Sierra Nevada snowmelt. The remaining 15 percent of water comes from runoff in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency [BAWSCA] 2026). The San Carlos water system maintained by Cal Water contains 112 miles of water main, 19 storage tanks, and 25 booster pumps (Cal Water 2022).
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 326
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 128
Wastewater
Wastewater services in the City are provided by Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW). SVCW is a Joint Powers Authority founded in 1975 and is comprised of four member agencies, including the City of San Carlos.

The SVCW treatment plant is located in Redwood City, which borders San Carlos. Wastewater arrives at the facility through a series of pipelines and pumpstations and is then passed through a physical, chemical, and biological treatment process. High quality effluent is then discharged to the deep-water channel of the San Francisco Bay. The City’s pump station is currently undergoing upgrades as a part of SVCW’s Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance Upgrade program. The pump station will be reconfigured to accommodate a drop structure connecting to a new SVCW gravity pipeline, which will eliminate the need for the existing pump station to convey wastewater to the treatment plant (SVCW 2025).

Stormwater
Stormwater infrastructure in San Carlos is provided by the City of San Carlos Public Works Department. The County also administers the Flows to Bay program, which is made up of 21 incorporated towns and cities that share a common NPDES permit to prevent harmful pollutants from entering creeks, the San Francisco Bay, and the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, Flows to Bay facilitates the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP).

Solid Waste
Solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services for the City provided by Recology San Mateo County under franchise agreement with the City. Recology provides residential and nonresidential collection services, including landfill disposal, recyclable materials processing, and organics diversion programs consistent with State mandates such as AB 939, AB 1826, and SB 1383. Solid waste generated within San Carlos is transported to permitted regional disposal facilities with available long-term capacity.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas services within the City are provided by PCE and PG&E. PCE is a public, not-for-profit electricity provider serving San Mateo County and the City of Los Banos.

PG&E provides natural gas service in San Carlos and manages costumer energy accounts.

Existing electrical and natural gas infrastructure serves the project area and surrounding neighborhoods.

Telecommunications
Telecommunications services within the City include telephone, internet, and wireless communication services, which are provided by multiple regional service providers utilizing existing infrastructure located within public rights-of-way and developed areas.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 327
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 129
Less-than-Significant Impact
The Plan would include implementation of park and facility improvements designed to reduce water consumption and improve stormwater management, including installation of efficient irrigation systems; use of reclaimed water where feasible; incorporation of green infrastructure features such as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation landscaping, and permeable paving; and installation of erosion control measures (e.g., water bars at Eaton Park). Proposed improvements to the Kiwanis Building and Youth Center would include replacement of building systems and appliances with appropriately sized all-electric units, as feasible. Some projects included in the Plan would require the expansion of utility infrastructure, such as installation of new water lines at Burton Park, extension of underground electrical utilities at Crestview Park, extension of electrical, water, and sewer utilities at Big Canyon Park. Potential environmental effects associated with construction of these expanded utilities are discussed throughout this IS/MND, particularly in Section 4.2.4, Biological Resources, Section 4.2.5, Cultural Resources, Section 4.2.7, Geology and Soils, and Section 4.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. As described in the applicable resource sections, implementation of Parks Master Plan Guidelines and mitigation measure included in this document would minimize potential environmental effects of utility expansion to a less-than-significant level.

Therefore, the proposed Plan would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities which would cause significant environmental effects. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less-than-Significant Impact
Construction of individual projects under the Plan would require the use of water for construction activities such as watering soil stockpiles and exposed areas. The water needed for construction activities would be comparable to the water demand for similar types of construction projects in San Carlos and would not substantially increase existing demand for water within the City.

Therefore, the impact of water demand associated with construction would be less than significant.

Some projects under the proposed Plan would require extension of potable water facilities, such as new restrooms, irrigation systems, drinking fountains, and retrofitting of water play structures.

However, these extensions would not constitute an increase in water demand in the Plan Area, because the Plan would not encourage population growth. As described in Section 4.2.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Plan would not include the construction of new housing or provide services which would encourage or support growth within the City. Therefore, the Plan would not result in any significant increase of potable water demand. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 328
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 130
Less-than-Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.2.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Plan would not construct new housing or provide services which would encourage or support growth within the City.

Although some projects under the proposed Plan would require extension of existing wastewater infrastructure, such as the construction of new restroom facilities, the Plan would not result in substantial population growth that would exceed capacity of the local wastewater treatment provider. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less-than-Significant Impact
The Plan would include implementation of improvements identified, such as renovation and enhancement of existing park facilities, construction of new recreational amenities, and periodic replacement or upgrade of park infrastructure. Solid waste generated by the proposed Plan would primarily include construction and demolition (C&D) waste from old park furniture, playgrounds, turf, tennis courts, etc. Projects undertaken under the Plan would be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Requirements, as described in Chapter 8.05 of the SCMC, which require diversion of at least 60 percent of C&D waste from landfill disposal through recycling or reuse. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Building, which shall identify the estimated volume of C&D waste to be generated, the maximum amount of such materials that can be feasibly diverted, the vendor or facility the applicant proposed to receive the material, and the estimated amount of C&D material that will be landfilled Compliance with these requirements would ensure that projects under the proposed Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.

The Plan would not result in any ongoing, permanent increase in solid waste generation. The impact would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less-than-Significant Impact
Implementation of improvements identified in the Plan would generate C&D waste associated with renovation, replacement, and construction of park facilities and amenities. As described above in Threshold d), future projects implemented under the Plan would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local solid waste management regulations, including requirements for recycling and diversion of C&D materials. The City and its franchised waste hauler, Recology San Mateo County, require recycling and organics diversion consistent with State mandates, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), AB 1826, and SB 1383, which establish waste reduction and diversion targets aimed to reduce landfill disposal.

Operation of the Plan would generate similar amounts of solid waste as pre-project conditions, as the Plan would not introduce any new permanent sources of solid waste generation. Typical waste generated within the Plan Area includes municipal solid waste (e.g., visitor trash, eventrelated waste, pet waste), recyclables (e.g., cardboard, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and glass containers), and organic waste (e.g., grass clippings, tree trimmings, fallen leaves, brush). The City’s Parks and Recreation Department would continue to comply with local requirements for (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 329
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 131
solid waste, recyclables, and organic waste disposal. Therefore, the Project would comply with all federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The impact would be less than significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 330
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 132

4.2.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessthanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of San Carlos is in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) for wildfire prevention, meaning that wildfire protection is assigned to local, rather than state agencies (CAL FIRE 2026). The southwestern edge of the City is within a Moderate to High FHSZ. Four out of the 17 parks and facilities within the Plan are within a FHSZ, including Crestview Park (High FHSZ), North Crestview Park (Moderate FHSZ), Vista Park (Moderate FHSZ), and parts of Big Canyon Park (Moderate-High FHSZ). The nearest Very High FHSZ is located approximately 0.22 miles west of the City in unincorporated San Mateo County (CAL FIRE 2026).

REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Carlos General Plan
The City’s General Plan ESPS Element contains the following applicable policies related to wildfire:
• ESPS-3.6: Minimize new development (residential and nonresidential) within the Very High FHSZ.
• ESPS-3.9: Incorporate or require the incorporation of fire safety features in new development and re-development.
• ESPS-3.12: Ensure adequate water supply is available. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 331
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 133
• ESPS-3.13: Ensure new and existing public and privately owned properties are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes and reduces fire hazard threats and has adequate fire protection.
• ESPS-3.14: Provide adequate evacuation routes and access for fire and emergency service vehicles to all San Carlos areas.
• ESPS-3.15: Identify and implement measures to mitigate single access roads and non-conforming roadways, as feasible.

San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The San Mateo County MLHMP assesses the likelihood of future hazard events and establishes mitigation protocols to address them. According to the MLHMP, the highest risk factors for the City of San Carlos are sea level rise and climate change, floods, landslides, and wildfire (County of San Mateo 2021).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
Implementation of the Plan would not impact implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Parks would be accessed via existing roads and equipment and materials staging for improvement projects would be located within parking lots or within the parks themselves. Construction of individual projects under the Plan are not anticipated to result in any road closures. In addition, certain park improvements, such as paving the fire road at Eaton Park and Arguello Park and improving the fire road with durable surface at Crestview Park, are specifically designed to improve emergency vehicle access, which would result in a beneficial impact related to emergency response. The Plan would not conflict with any mitigation activities included in the County’s MLHMP. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less-than-Significant Impact
The Plan encompasses parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. Four out of the 17 parks and facilities within the Plan are within a FHSZ, including Crestview Park (High FHSZ), North Crestview Park (Moderate FHSZ), Vista Park (Moderate FHSZ), and parts of Big Canyon Park (Moderate-High FHSZ). Improvements at these parks include improvements to wayfinding signage; the installation of shade structures, fencing, and water fountains; and the installation of a bathroom at Big Canyon Park. No improvements are proposed at North Crestview Park.

Improvements at Crestview Park, Big Canyon Park, and Vista Park are not anticipated to increase wildfire risk. None of the improvements would add ignition sources or fire hazards such as overhead electrical equipment, barbeques, or other potential fire ignition sources. These parks are already utilized by community members and the proposed improvements would not substantially increase park use, as described in Section 4.2.16, Recreation. Therefore, the Plan (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 332
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 134
would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose the community to pollutant concentrations from wildfire. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact
Four out of the 17 parks and facilities within the Plan Area are within a FHSZ, including Crestview Park (High FHSZ), North Crestview Park (Moderate FHSZ), Vista Park (Moderate FHSZ), and parts of Big Canyon Park (Moderate-High FHSZ). No improvements are proposed at North Crestview Park. Improvements to Crestview Park, Vista Park, and Big Canyon Park include signage upgrades, the installation of shade structures and other standard park amenities, playground replacements, and construction of new restrooms, and landscaping improvements.

The Plan would not introduce associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. While the Project includes new utility connections, such as the extension of existing electrical utilities to accommodate a new restroom at Big Canyon Park and the installation of new safety lighting bollards at Crestview Park, these improvements would be installed underground and would not require any new overhead power lines that could increase fire risk. Fire road improvements at Crestview Park would include durable surfacing and the elimination of trailhead erosion issues, which would result in a beneficial effect for emergency access vehicles. Additionally, the extension of water lines to Vista Park and Big Canyon Park for water fountain and restroom installation, respectively, would introduce potential new emergency water sources for the parks.

All proposed improvements would be required to comply with the General Plan, the SCMC, the CBC as adopted by the City, and the MLHMP. Therefore, the Plan would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less-than-Significant Impact
As described in Section 4.2.7, Geology and Soils, some portions of the Plan Area are within a CGS landslide hazard zone. The majority of improvements included in the Plan would replace or rehabilitate existing equipment in kind in the same location (e.g., replacement of park furniture and playground equipment, resurfacing of tennis courts, trail improvements, replacement of signage), which would not alter the park sites in a way that would expose people or structures to risks associated with post-fire instability. The Plan also proposes improvements specifically designed to improve drainage and reduce erosion. Trail improvements at Eaton Park would involve the addition of rolling dips, which would create undulating slopes to allow for the natural flow of water off the trail. Water bars would also be installed to slow and divert water from the trailhead. At Arguello Park, approximately 1.12 miles of social trails, which are currently contributing to erosion at the site, would be formalized by improving grading, surface material, and drainage. Additionally, 0.2 miles of trail would be realigned to address existing erosion impacts. At Big Canyon Park, the Plan proposes a floodplain detention basin to protect against flooding and erosion. These improvements would reduce the risk of downslope or downstream (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 333
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 135
flooding or landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The impact would be less than significant.
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 334
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 136

4.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessthanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Implementation of the Plan would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Implementation of mitigation measures presented in Section 4.2.4, Biological Resources, would mitigate potential significant impacts that could substantially degrade the quality of the environment or impact biological resources. As discussed in Section 4.2.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, impacts to potentially unknown resources within the Plan Area would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4. Given the fact that potential impacts to biological and cultural resources would primarily occur during active construction (not long term) and that measures have been identified to reduce these temporary impacts, impacts (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 335
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 137
would not be considered significant. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less-than-Significant Impact
Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The Plan includes a variety of park improvements that would be implemented over a 20-year period within the Plan Area. The majority of projects included in the Plan include rehabilitation or replacement of existing facilities, such as signage, park furniture, playground equipment, turf, tennis courts, and trails and walkways. The purpose of these improvements is to replace existing degraded infrastructure and increase the longevity of park facilities thus limiting the need for future maintenance and replacement. As stated in the Parks Master Plan Guidelines, proposed improvements would use “durable, high-quality materials that age well and are appropriate for the San Franciso Bay Peninsula climate, with consideration for long-term maintenance.” Thus, the purpose and design of improvements is to reduce the need for future maintenance that could have cumulative incremental effects on the Plan Area.

Some improvements included in the Plan would convert natural land cover types to developed areas, such as the construction of new restroom facilities, paved picnic areas, and an asphalt pump track. These improvements are only proposed in small areas at a limited number of parks and would not convert significant amounts of habitat into developed land cover types. These improvements support the existing use of parks and open spaces in the City and are cohesive with the type of park they are proposed at (i.e., neighborhood park vs. open space area).

Implementation of the Plan would support and enhance the City’s existing park system without substantially altering the nature of recreational opportunities in a way that would create cumulatively considerable impacts. The impact would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Potential impacts to human beings have been addressed in this IS/MND, including impacts related to air quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation. Construction activities associated with the proposed Plan would cause potential temporary impacts to humans due to the generation of fugitive dust emissions. However, the BAAD considers implementation of dust control measures during construction sufficient to reduce air quality impacts from fugitive dust to a less-than-significant level. In accordance with City General Plan policy EM-6.6, all development projects in the City must implement BAAD’s standard BMPs for fugitive dust control. In addition, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be implemented, which requires that a Construction HRA be prepared for any future projects under the plan that would involve construction for a duration of two months or longer within 1,000 feet of a sensitive (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 336
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 138
receptor (e.g., residence, school, etc.). With implementation of this measure, the Plan would not result in any air quality impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation resulting from the Plan were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

As such, the Plan would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 337
San Carlos Parks Master Plan · City of San Carlos
Final Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | May 2026 139

5.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Draft IS/MND for the proposed San Carlos Parks Master Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2026040868) was circulated for a 30-day public review period from April 17, 2026, to May 18, 2026, pursuant to Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Draft IS/MND and the response to comments on the Draft IS/MND are informational documents prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decisionmakers before approving the proposed project and that must reflect the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090).

This section of the Final IS/MND provides responses to the comments and questions on the Draft IS/MND circulated by the City to public agencies and the public. As discussed below in the response to comments, edits to the Draft IS/MND have incorporated the comments where appropriate. With these edits, the Final IS/MND does not describe a project having any new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified and analyzed in the Draft IS/MND.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not required.

This section contains a copy of the comment letters submitted during the public review period on the Draft IS/MND, and the individual responses to those comments. Where responses have resulted in changes to the Draft IS/MND, these changes are shown in the response and also appear in the Final IS/MND as underlined or strike out text.

During the public review period, the following organizations/persons provided written comments on the Draft IS/MND to the City:

A. Caltrans District 4
(.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 338
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
May 18, 2026 SCH #: 2026040868
GTS #: 04-SM-2026-00784
GTS ID: 39869
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/VAR/VAR
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Re: San Carlos Parks Master Plan ─ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
Dear Lisa Costa Sanders:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the San Carlos Parks Master Plan. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the April 2026 Draft IS/MND.

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

Project Understanding
The proposed project is a master plan for the 17 parks and open spaces located within the City of San Carlos. The plan outlines a long-term vision for the park area which includes three community parks, five neighborhood parks, five mini-parks, two special use parks, two open spaces, five facilities. These areas are spread throughout the city with Laureola Park and Frank D. Harrington Park being the closest to a State Right of Way (State Route 82).

Multimodal System Planning
Caltrans District 4 Multimodal System Planning (System Planning) would like to advise the City of several concurrent planning efforts within the Master Plan vicinity, which are described below. System Planning recommends these planning efforts be incorporated into the Transportation section of the IS/MND by reference.

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation 4
3 J.
■ O
(aHrans “urone
L OF

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 339
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner
May 18, 2026

Page 2 ends

San Carlos City CouncilJune 8, 2026

San Carlos City Council
June 8, 2026