San Carlos City Council
June 8, 2026

3.2 3.1

3.3 3.4

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 657
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 73
Goal 4
Support a sustainable way of life through parks
and recreation.

San Carlos is committed to promoting environmental
stewardship through its parks and recreation system. The City embraces sustainable maintenance and thoughtful resource management that not only support its climate goals but also protect and celebrate local natural treasures for generations to come.

4.1. Design new park and community facilities using
an environmentally-friendly approach.

4.2. Incorporate sustainable practices into the ongoing maintenance of City parks and recreational facilities in accordance with the San Carlos
Climate Mitigation Action Plan (CMAP).

4.3. Ensure the assessment, preservation, and
management of both new and mature trees
to promote long-term ecological health and
community benefits.

4.1 4.2

4.3 10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 658
74 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Comfort Creating available
spaces for all users
Flexibility Prioritizing multi-use and
multigenerational
Access &
Connection
Emphasizing equitable
distribution and access
Placemaking Encouraging community
identity
Aesthetics Honoring San Carlos’
identity
Sustainability
& Resilience
Enforcing eco conscious
efforts and impacts
Safety & Sense
of Security
Promote safe and
secure public spaces

OVERVIEW
This section outlines the design principles and
considerations that will guide the planning
and design of future parks, open spaces,
and recreation facilities in San Carlos.

Together, these principles provide a consistent
framework to ensure that new and improved
facilities respond to their site context, function
effectively, and support community connection
while respecting the City’s natural and built
environment.

The principles are accompanied by a set of
strategies to support City decision-making
when evaluating park and facility projects.

They are intended to complement existing City
ordinances and adopted plans and should
be implemented in coordination with other
applicable policies and regulations.

The San Carlos Hillside Trails Plan (2012) plays
a key role in shaping design considerations for
open space and trail projects. It establishes
guidelines related to trail settings, alignment
and design, drainage crossings, steep slopes,
materials, signage, and construction practices.

Together with the design principles outlined in
this section, these standards help ensure that
new or improved trails are safe, sustainable,
and sensitive to surrounding natural resources
and habitats.

COMFORT
Comfort in parks and community facilities
is essential to ensuring that spaces are
welcoming, usable, and accessible to all users.

Well-designed spaces support a wide range of
ages, abilities, and activities, allowing visitors to
feel at ease, spend time in the space, and use
amenities throughout the year.
• Provide a range of spaces and
experiences that support different uses
and user groups through the creation of
distinct “outdoor rooms.” Use topography,
architectural elements, planting, and
trees to define edges and create clear
transitions between spaces.
• Establish a clear hierarchy of spaces, with
one or more primary gathering areas

3.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

AND CONSIDERATIONS

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 659
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 75
supported by smaller secondary spaces
such as pathways, alcoves, and informal
seating areas. This hierarchy should help
orient visitors and encourage movement
through the park, offering a mix of social
and quiet experiences.
• Consider solar exposure and natural
ventilation when locating paths,
amenities, and buildings to support
comfort and usability throughout the
year. As appropriate, incorporate design
elements that buffer wind and noise.
• Provide a balanced mix of sun and shade
throughout parks and facilities. Shade
should be incorporated into play areas,
picnic areas, and spectator spaces,
with particular attention to south- and
west-facing edges. Shade elements
may include trees, structures, or other
architectural features.
• Ensure developed parks include core
comfort amenities, such as play elements,
shade structures, seating, drinking
fountains, and restrooms. These elements
should be sited to maximize use, support
the overall park concept, and enhance
the visitor experience.
• Design community facilities to support
indoor comfort, providing ample natural
light, appropriate acoustics, clear and
welcoming entry points, and features that
promote safety and security.

Seating and Picnic Areas
• Provide a variety of seating and picnic
configurations using comfortable, durable
materials that are accessible to people of
all ages and abilities.
• Locate seating to support both casual
spectators and active participants near
play areas, courts, and open spaces.
• Include shaded picnic areas in all parks,
using trees, structures, or other shade
elements.
• Ensure all seating and picnic areas are
accessible via paved pathways.

Play and Fitness Elements
• Provide at least one play element in all
developed parks.
• Incorporate swing elements in new parks
where feasible, recognizing their broad
appeal across age groups.
• Include fitness elements alongside
playgrounds to support multigenerational
use and encourage physical activity for
users of all ages.

Trash and Recycle Bins
• Locate trash and recycling bins
strategically to support park use while
allowing for convenient access for
collection and maintenance.

Bicycle Racks
• Install bicycle racks near play areas,
courts, trailheads, and other key park
destinations.
• Select bicycle rack designs that are
durable, functional, and visually
compatible with park settings.

Drinking Fountains
• Provide drinking fountains near areas of
physical activity, such as playgrounds,
multi-use courts, trailheads, and fitness
equipment.
• Design fountains to be accessible and
user-friendly, incorporating features such
Shaded picnic area adjacent to restrooms

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 660
76 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
as bottle fillers and dog bowls where
appropriate.

Restrooms
• Provide public restrooms in community
parks, recreation facilities, and selected
urban parks, based on park size, level of
use, and programming.

Kiosks
• Incorporate kiosks or similar features that
provide information about park amenities,
programs, and community events, helping
visitors connect with park activities and
resources.

Wi-Fi
• Where feasible, provide Wi-Fi access
in parks and community facilities to
support flexible use, programming, and
community engagement.

FLEXIBILITY
Flexible park spaces and recreation facilities
support a wide range of activities, programs,
and events, and allow the parks and recreation
system to adapt over time as community needs,
demographics, and recreation trends evolve.
• Design parks and facilities to support
multi-use activities, allowing spaces to
accommodate a variety of recreation,
programming, and informal uses.
• Include areas for community events
within community parks, supported
by appropriate infrastructure such as
electrical service, storage, and temporary
parking to accommodate festivals, sports
events, performances, and other large
gatherings.
• Provide electrical outlets in parks where
appropriate, particularly at reservable
picnic areas and event spaces, to support
small group gatherings and community
use. Final infrastructure logistics can be
determined during project design and
construction.
• Incorporate movable furnishings and
flexible layouts in community facilities,
along with adequate storage, to support
changing activities and user needs.
• Plan building systems with future
adaptability in mind, including
sufficient electrical capacity, data
infrastructure, and technology systems
to accommodate growth and evolving
programming.

ACCESS AND

CONNECTION
Well-connected parks and community facilities
are accessible, inclusive, and seamlessly
integrated into their surrounding neighborhoods
and natural environments. Strong connections
between public spaces should prioritize walking
and bicycling, support safe and intuitive
movement, and ensure that parks feel like
natural extensions of the community they serve.
• Integrate parks and facilities with
surrounding circulation networks,
Multi-use indoor sports court

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 661
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 77
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.
• Provide universal access throughout
parks and facilities, incorporating looped
pathways, ramps, accessible entries, and
barrier-free routes that accommodate
users of all ages and abilities.
• Design looped pathways to support
inclusive use, using durable, all-weather
surfaces with a minimum clear width of
four feet to encourage walking, wheeling,
and casual recreation.
• Ensure paved, all-weather pathways
connect key amenities, including
playgrounds, picnic areas, drinking
fountains, seating, sports fields and courts,
trailheads, and dog parks.
• Design primary pathways to
accommodate multiple user types, such
as pedestrians, joggers, strollers, and
mobility devices, by providing adequate
width and clear sightlines.
• Incorporate inclusive wayfinding and
accessibility features such as tactile
elements, clear signage, options
for individuals with visual or hearing
impairments, and accessible restrooms
where appropriate.
• Use signage and swing gates
strategically to manage vehicle access
and discourage long-term parking in
designated parking lots while maintaining
welcoming pedestrian access.
• 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.

PLACEMAKING
Placemaking focuses on creating parks and
community facilities that reflect the unique
character, culture, and identity of San Carlos
and its neighborhoods. Thoughtful design can
help these spaces feel welcoming, distinctive,
and rooted in their surroundings, strengthening
their role as community gathering places and
neighborhood focal points.

San Carlos utility box mural
Cultural Elements (credit: Landscape Structures, Inc.)

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 662
78 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Create a distinct identity 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.
• Minimize conflicts between private and
public spaces through appropriate use
of fencing, landscaping, and buffer
treatments along the perimeter.
• Encourage positive relationships between
parks and adjacent businesses, supporting
shared activity, visibility, and mutually
beneficial uses.
• Capitalize on views into, through, and
from parks, framing views of park features
and preserving vistas of surrounding
landmarks and natural elements.
• Incorporate distinctive design features
that attract a wide range of users and
establish parks as inviting destinations or
neighborhood focal points. Features may
include gardens, architectural elements,
water features, or other unique sitespecific elements. • 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.
• Integrate public art throughout the
design, using art as a focal feature
or incorporating it into architectural
elements, paving, or site furnishings.

Interactive art elements are encouraged.
• Integrate public art that reflects the
character, history, and values of San
Carlos, in accordance with the San Carlos
Public Arts Master Plan (2011).
• Incorporate community and cultural
elements, such as interpretive signage,
local history markers, or public art, to
reinforce a sense of place.

Planting design

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 663
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 79

AESTHETICS
Thoughtful design and visual appeal play an
important role in creating welcoming and
memorable parks and community facilities.

These aesthetic guidelines support consistent,
high-quality design across recreation facilities
and park spaces while reflecting the character
and values of the San Carlos community.
• Preserve existing mature trees and natural
landforms wherever possible.
• Use durable, high-quality materials
that age well and are appropriate for
the San Francisco Bay Area Peninsula
climate, with consideration for long-term
maintenance.
• Clearly define building entrances with
human-scaled, welcoming architectural
elements.
• Strengthen indoor–outdoor connections
between community facilities and
surrounding outdoor spaces through
operable doors, windows, and
thoughtfully placed view openings.
• Ensure site furnishings, including benches,
trash and recycling receptacles, fencing,
and similar elements, follow a unified
design vocabulary throughout the park
system.
• Consider interactive design features, such
as art installations, murals, themed play
elements, or educational signage.

SUSTAINABILITY AND

RESILIENCE
Sustainable and resilient design is essential to
the long-term performance of parks, open
spaces, and community facilities. Incorporating
energy-efficient systems, durable and lowmaintenance materials, and environmentally responsible design strategies can reduce
environmental impacts, lower operating costs,
and support adaptability to changing climate
conditions.
• 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.

Pollinator garden

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 664
80 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• 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.
• 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.
• Incorporate green infrastructure, such
as bioswales, rain gardens, conservation
landscapes, and permeable paving, to
manage stormwater while supporting
recreation and habitat restoration.
• Support environmental education and
stewardship, working with the community
and schools to encourage nature
appreciation and long-term care of parks
and open spaces.
• Use plant palettes appropriate to San
Carlos’ climate, consistent with Climate
Zone 10a and USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
guidance.

SAFETY AND SECURITY
Design parks and facilities to feel safe and
comfortable for all users through clear visibility,
intuitive access, and active use.
• Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access
by providing clear, direct, and wellconnected routes between parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities that
emphasize safety and ease of use.
• Maintain clear sightlines along pathways,
entrances, play areas, and gathering
spaces through thoughtful landscape and
site design.
• 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.
• Design for regular programming and
activity to support positive, visible use of
park spaces.

Clear site lines and active elements
Pedestrian scale lighting (credit: Revolve LED)

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 665
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 81

OVERVIEW
Park classifications provide a consistent
framework for organizing parks based on
their size, function, amenities, and the types
of experiences they offer. This framework
helps the City of San Carlos plan, manage,
and enhance its parks and recreation system
by supporting a balanced and equitable
distribution of recreational opportunities across
the community. By clearly defining the role
of each park type, the classification system
helps guide future development, maintenance
priorities, and resource allocation to meet both
current and long-term community needs.

The City of San Carlos defines five park
classifications. Each classification is
characterized by a common set of attributes,
including park character, activity level, size,
baseline amenities, connectivity, and access
area. Among these attributes, baseline
amenities and access area are key components
of the classification system described in greater
detail below.

Standard Baseline Amenities
Each park classification includes a set of
standard baseline amenities that represent the
minimum features expected for that park type.

As park size, activity level, and frequency of use
increase, the range and complexity of required
amenities also increase.

For example, mini parks are intended to serve
nearby residents and typically include basic
amenities such as seating and low-intensity
recreation features, including small play areas.

In contrast, community parks serve a broader
population and are expected to include
higher-use amenities such as sports courts,
athletic fields, reservable picnic areas, and
other facilities that support organized activities
and events.

Access Area
The access area defines the geographic area
from which a park is reasonably accessible
based on its anticipated activity level and
typical modes of travel. Parks with lower levels
of activity and fewer amenities generally
serve smaller access areas and are most often
reached on foot or by bicycle.

As the intensity of use and variety of amenities
increase, the access area expands to reflect a
broader service population and a wider range
of arrival methods. Community parks, which
include the greatest concentration of amenities
and support the highest levels of activity, are
intended to serve residents citywide and
therefore have the largest access areas.

3.3 PARK CLASSIFICATION
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Special Use Park
Open Space Area
Privately Owned Publicly
Accessible (POPA) Spaces
Mini Park

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 666
82 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 4-1: Park classification standards

MINI PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKCOMMUNITY
PARK

SPECIAL USE
PARK

OPEN SPACE
AREA
Character
Small
Neighborhood
social space
Neighborhood
social space
Community
Gathering Space Special Amenities Natural, preserved open space area Activity +
Users
Passive and lowintensity active
Individuals
Passive and active
Individuals to small
groups
Passive and Active
Individuals to large
groups
Passive or active
Individuals to small
groups
Passive
Individuals to small
groups
Standard
Baseline
Amenities
• Natural
landscape
• Seating or
picnic area
• Play amenity
• Natural
landscape
• Seating
• Picnic area
• Play amenity
• Sports, play,
or fitness
amenity
• Natural
landscape
• Seating
• Picnic areas
• Reservable
picnic areas
• Play amenity
• Sports, play,
or fitness
amenity
• Restrooms
• Parking
• Natural
landscape
• Seating
• Unique
amenity
• Natural
landscape
• Trail head
• Seating
• Wayfinding
signage
• Trail paths
Size Less than 1 acre 4-10 acres 10+ acres Flexible Flexible Public
Connectivity
Walking
Driving
Walking
Driving
Walking
Driving
Active
Transportation
Public
Transportation
Walking
Driving
Active
Transportation
Public
Transportation
Walking
Driving
Active
Transportation
Access Area 0.25 miles 0.5 miles Entire City Entire City Entire City Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) spaces
The City has approved several developments that include Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) open spaces. These spaces typically take the form of outdoor plazas and seating areas that are privately owned and maintained but remain open and accessible to the public. As new development occurs, additional POPA spaces are expected to be introduced. While the Parks Master Plan does not formally classify POPA spaces due to their private ownership, those that function similarly to City parks should align with the City’s established park classification system. This approach helps promote consistency in design, functionality, and user experience across City sites.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 667
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 83

OVERVIEW
San Carlos currently manages 17 parks
spanning 186.4 acres. This section outlines
detailed, site-specific improvements that
complement the broader system-wide
recommendations by addressing the unique
characteristics and conditions of each location.

These improvements are informed by extensive
community input, a citywide needs assessment,
on-site evaluations, current recreation trends,
available funding, and close collaboration with
City staff.

Most of San Carlos’ parks will benefit from
continued investment in routine maintenance
and the timely repair or replacement of aging
amenities. For example, playground structures
typically require replacement every 20 years,
as outlined in the Maintenance and Lifecycle
Plan in Chapter 4. While many parks require
regular upgrades, others present opportunities
for larger-scale improvements that can better
respond to evolving community needs. These
priority sites are addressed individually in the
Implementation Plan, with recommendations
tailored to each site’s unique conditions and
potential. As San Carlos grows and recreation
trends shift over time, recommended
improvements should be revisited and refined
to remain aligned with community priorities.

Recommended improvements range from
replacing outdated amenities that have
exceeded their lifecycle to comprehensive site
master planning for long-term transformation.

Given the variety of project types, factors
such as funding availability, and timing may
influence implementation. Estimated costs by
park and the recommended Action Plan are
provided in Appendix H.

Each park is presented with an overview of
existing conditions, followed by recommended
improvements.

To support a thoughtful and flexible rollout,
improvements are organized into the
following implementation time frames. The
comprehensive Implementation Plan is
provided in Chapter 4:
• Short-term (0-5 years)
• Mid-term (5-10 years)
• Long-term (10+ years)
Exempted Parks
Some parks are not recommended for
improvements at this time due to ongoing
projects/studies or sufficient existing service
levels. These sites should continue to receive
routine maintenance and periodic review
to ensure they continue to meet community
needs over the next 20 years. Exempted parks
include:
• Chilton Park: Improvements were
completed in 2022 in accordance with
the approved, community-driven Master
Plan.
• Frank D. Harrington Park: Designed as part
of the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan
(2025), with construction in 2026. Planned
improvements include conversion to an
open plaza with seating, restrooms, and
a connecting stage in the 700 block of
Laurel Street.
• North Crestview Park: Currently
undergoing a master planning process.

Preliminary concepts include a
playground, sports courts, walking paths,
a Veterans Memorial, and parking.
• Rosek Park: No improvements are
recommended at this time, as the park
currently meets community needs.

3.4 PARK IMPROVEMENTS

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 668
84 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Site Rating Matrix
Each park site was evaluated as part of a
preliminary assessment conducted in 2024.

The results of this assessment are graphically
presented for each park to illustrate existing
conditions across several key factors. The
following graphics explain each factor and
condition rating matrix.

Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function: Overall accessibility, circulation, wayfinding, navigation, parking, usability Amenities: Site furnishings, sports fields and courts, play structures, standard amenities Recreation: Level of recreation offered at the site
Landscape: Planting, trees, landscaping, grass, turf
Excellent condition / Variety of activities
Fair condition / Sufficient level of activities
Needs Improvement / Limited activities
Overall condition when combining the
following site feature ratings

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 669
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 85
Diamond field and batting cages
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Arguello Park is a beloved community park that
offers a mix of active and passive recreation
opportunities. The park includes a play area for
ages 5–12, two picnic areas, and a diamond
field with bleacher seating and batting cages.

Additional amenities include two parking lots,
restrooms, and open space trails with informal
picnicking opportunities.

Overall, the park is in fair condition, reflecting
typical wear from heavy use and aging
infrastructure. Several amenities would benefit
from targeted updates to improve functionality,
safety, and overall user experience. Enhancing
accessibility—particularly along pathways
and within key facilities—would help ensure
the park is usable for people of all ages and
abilities. Improvements to landscaping, play
areas, and recreational features, including the
open space trails, could further support active
use while preserving the park’s character and
role as a valued community resource.

ABOUT THE PARK

ARGUELLO PARK
Community Park | 21 acres
900 Chestnut Drive
Playground
Picnic area by snack shack

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 670
86 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PHELPS RDPHELPS RD

WELLINGTON DR

SHELDON AVE

DARTMOUTH AVE

NORTHAM AVE

ARGUELLO PARK IMPROVEMENTS
1 1
4 5
9 Replace playground
Resurface
pathways
16 Improved access and
visibility to picnic area
11 Mini Ropes
Course
12 Formalize
existing trails
13 Overlook
3 Existing trail
Picnic Area
Play Area
Shade Structure
Pump Track
Entry/Egress
Paved Path
10 8
Pump track
Accessible picnic area
7 Pave fire road
15 10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 671
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 87
Arguello Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Replace batting cage surfacing X
2 Implement citywide tree maintenance program recommendations X 3 Create an overlook at "the rocks" with interpretive signage X 4 Add wayfinding signage and trailhead kiosk for open space trails X 5 Add and relocate picnic tables/bench seating in open space area X 6 Install park rules signage (including no biking) X
7 Add accessible picnic tables at snack shack picnic area X 8 Site pump track at bend of Dartmouth/Northam Ave; consider fencing to block cyclists from entering trail network X
9 Add shade structure over picnic area and bleachers X
10 Replace playground (consider a themed or adventure course) X 11 Improve access to sunken picnic area X
12 Construct mini ropes course, embankment slide, and zip line near Wellington Ave parking and implement erosion control measures. X 13 Formalize existing trails (proper grading, surfacing, drainage), consider realigning some trail segments, and decommission others X 14 Add park trails to existing trails maintenance contract X 15 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
16 Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing X Reference Images
8 9 12

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 672
88 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Informational kiosk at trail head
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Big Canyon Park is a valued natural open space
with a trail network that offers opportunities
for birdwatching and access to diverse
ecosystems. Characterized by rugged terrain
and dense woodlands, the park features
approximately 2.6 miles of challenging and
scenic trails that lead to panoramic views
overlooking San Carlos and the San Francisco
Bay. Amenities include trailhead information,
benches, creek crossings with bridges, and
a small labyrinth near the Brittan Avenue
entrance.

Overall, the park is in good condition; however,
some areas experience erosion that could pose
safety concerns if left unaddressed. Wayfinding
and seating opportunities are limited, which
may affect user comfort and accessibility.

Targeted improvements focused on erosion
management, signage, seating, and restroom
access would enhance safety and usability
while preserving the park’s natural character
and visitor experience.

ABOUT THE PARK

BIG CANYON PARK
Open Space Area | 55 acres
3190 Brittan Avenue
Informational kiosk at trail head
Labyrinth

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 673
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 89

MELENDY DR

BRITTAN AVE

EATON PARK

CRESTVIEW
PARK

HHEATHHERR DOG

EXERCISE AREA
1 Vista point
Restroom
5 BIG CANYON PARK
Existing trail

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 674
90 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Big Canyon Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 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
2 Add wayfinding signage throughout the park X
3 Add or restore park benches and picnic tables X
4 Implement flora/fauna app/website with QR Code on signage at the site X
5 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
6 Incorporate erosion control measures on open slopes to enhance slope stability between Melendy Drive and Drake Court X 7 Implement Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan Native Plant Pilot Program X
8 Consider integrating a floodplain detention basin as noted in the Pulgas Creek Watershed Plan X
9 Expand and enhance trail system per Hillside Trails Plan, including designated ADA trail at Brittan Avenue X
Reference Images
1 5 4

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 675
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 91
5-12 Playground
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Burton Park is San Carlos’ oldest and most
well-known developed park. Located near
downtown, it serves as a dynamic and heavily
used community hub, drawing a wide range
of users and hosting many City-sponsored
activities, including concerts, campouts, movie
nights, and youth camps. The park offers a
broad mix of amenities, including sports fields,
sports and game courts, children’s play areas,
water play features, picnic areas, and parking.

The Youth Center and Kiwanis Building are also
located within Burton Park.

Overall, the park is in good condition, though
signs of heavy use and aging infrastructure
are evident. Select amenities would benefit
from targeted upgrades to improve safety,
accessibility, and overall user experience.

Improvements to pathways, and recreational
features would help support continued active
use while preserving the park’s character and
role as a central community gathering place.

ABOUT THE PARK

BURTON PARK
Community Park | 10.3 acres
900 Chestnut Drive
Flanagan Field
Informal grass area

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 676
92 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Picnic Area
Play Area
Entry/Egress
6 Formalize
picnic area

BURTON PARK
1 Improve lawn
drainage
Replace water play with
recycled water system
9 4
Improve field
drainage
3 Enhance
wayfinding
11 Improve
park access
8 Outdoor “Living Room”
(see Youth Center)
5 Remove sandbox
Replace Kiwanis Building
with new community
building through master
plan process
10 7
Update cornhole
area accessibility
Upgrade
playground
11 CHESTNUT ST

CEDAR ST

BRITTAN AVE

ARROYO AVE

WOODLAND AVE

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 677
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 93
Burton Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Improve lawn drainage at concert lawn X
2 Prepare a tree succession plan in and implement citywide tree maintenance program recommendations X
3 Add wayfinding signage at the Woodland Avenue park entrance X 4 Improve field drainage at diamond fields X
5 Remove sandbox area from play area and repurpose with usable play area X
6 Add formalized reservable picnic area with accessible path and one (1) ADA table (minimum) to concert lawn X
7 Install weather-resistant material surfacing next to concrete cornhole boards X
8 Add improved access at Woodland Avenue and Brittan Avenue corner X 9 Replace water circulation for water play element to meet current code requirements X
10 Kiwanis building to be replaced with new community building through master plan process X
11 Replace playgrounds to be fully inclusive; consider themed play design X Reference Images
6 11 4

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 678
94 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Cedar Street Park is a cozy neighborhood
park nestled within a residential area. The park
is fully fenced, providing a safe and secure
environment for young children. Amenities
include picnic tables, a basketball court, and
a children’s play area with a swing set and
sandbox. The park perimeter is largely defined
by mature redwood and mulberry trees, which
provide shade, visual interest, and screening for
adjacent homes. A mural painted by a local Girl
Scouts troop adds color and character along
the wall adjacent to the basketball court.

Overall, the park would benefit from
comprehensive improvements to enhance
functionality and appeal. Upgraded amenities,
improved access and circulation, and the
addition of unique features could address
existing deficiencies, improve safety and
usability, and better support neighborhood
recreation needs while attracting a broader
range of users.

ABOUT THE PARK

CEDAR STREET PARK
Mini Park | 0.70 acres
10 Cedar Street
Playground structure and swings
Basketball court wall mural
Basketball court and bench

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 679
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 95
Play Area
Paved Path
Entry/Egress
Repave pathways with
all-weather surface
3 4
Replace picnic area
with upgraded
amenities

CEDAR STREET PARK
3 Replace playground
and upgrade design
through community
engagement process
5 Consider future restroom
installment

CEDAR ST

WALTON ST

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 680
96 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cedar Street Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Implement citywide tree maintenance program
recommendations X
2 Replace fencing X
3 Replace and expand playground 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
4 Replace pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing X 5 Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables, drinking fountain, trash receptacles, park sign, benches) X
6 Consider restroom facilities on site X
Reference Images
2 4 4
3 5

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 681
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 97
Agility ramp
Picnic table within dog park
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Central tree within dog park
City Hall Dog Park is a fully fenced, off-leash
dog park located adjacent to City Hall and
the Adult Community Center. It is heavily used,
particularly during early morning and late
afternoon hours. The park is shaded by a variety
of mature trees and includes amenities such
as picnic tables, benches, multi-level drinking
fountains, dog play features, an information
kiosk, and dog waste stations. Additional picnic
tables are located along the adjacent grassy
area near City Hall.

Overall, the park is in fair condition and
would benefit from general maintenance
improvements, including updated amenities,
enhanced dog play features, and improved
landscaping. While the park currently serves
pet owners and their dogs, there is potential
to expand its role as a shared civic space if a
separate off-leash dog park is established in
the future, supporting a broader range of users
and activities.

ABOUT THE PARK

CITY HALL DOG PARK
Special Use Park | 1.3 acres
1401 San Carlos Avenue

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 682
98 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CITY HALL DOG PARK

ADULT COMMUNITY

CENTER CITY HALL
1 Add upgraded dog
play amenities
2 Remove picnic
tables to add more
casual seating
areas
SAN CA
ELM ST

RLOS AVE
Seating Area
Entry/Egress

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 683
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 99
City Hall Dog Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Enhance park landscape and dog agility amenities, consider theme elements or design X
2 Replace picnic tables with benches and grouped seating areas X 3 Improve drainage at drinking fountain X
4 Consider repurposing dog park into a civic park if a dog park is sited elsewhere X
1 2 2
4 Reference Images

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 684
100 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5-12 playground with themed play element
Recently installed pickleball courts
Crestview Park is a beloved and peaceful
neighborhood park located on a hillside.

Amenities include a playground, sports courts,
a multi-use soccer field encircled by a walking
track, shaded reservable picnic areas, and
restroom facilities. Recent renovations included
transforming a full basketball court into a multiuse hard court with two pickleball courts and a half basketball court.

As one of San Carlos’ more recently developed
neighborhood parks, Crestview Park is in good
condition and shows only typical wear on
amenities. The recently converted pickleball
and basketball courts see daily use and
have become a popular feature of the park.

Future enhancements could include updating
the playground and making targeted
improvements to further enhance the overall
visitor experience.

ABOUT THE PARK

CRESTVIEW PARK
Neighborhood Park | 7.0 acres
Crestview Drive at Leslie Court
Picnic area adjacent to walking trail and grass
field
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 685
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 101

CRESTVIEW DR
6 LESLIE DR

BIG CANYON
PARK

CRESTVIEW PARK
1 Fencing
Add shade structure
over bleachers
4 2
Formalize Leslie
Drive entrance and
walking trail
3 Add screening trees
6 Add security lighting
5 Replace playground,
consider theme design
Remove sand box
Play Area
Paved Path
Entry/Egress

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 686
102 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Crestview Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Add permanent fencing between field and parking lot X 2 Improve pedestrian entrance at Leslie Drive and perimeter trail in open space area (all-weather surfacing, signage) X
3 Plant two (2) new trees (between parking lot and field) X 4 Add shade structure over bleachers X
5 Remove and repurpose sandbox to active play space X
6 Replace playground, consider themed/adventure play
expansion X
7 Add standard safety lighting (motion detected, low brightness levels, consider solar powered) X
Reference Images
1 4 4
5 6
Credit: Burke Play Credit: Revolve LED

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 687
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 103
Labyrinth at summit plateau
Sheltered kiosk at trailhead
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Tree canopy over trails
Eaton Park is a large, tranquil open space known
for its network of meandering and challenging
trails (approximately 3.57 miles), diverse wildlife,
oak-studded hills, and shaded woodland groves
within a largely undeveloped landscape. At
the summit, a labyrinth and seating areas offer
opportunities to enjoy sweeping views of San
Carlos and the San Francisco Bay. The park
includes both City-managed trails and informal
paths created through frequent use.

Overall, the park is in good condition; however,
some areas experience erosion that could
pose safety concerns if left unaddressed.

Wayfinding and seating opportunities are
limited, which may affect user comfort and
accessibility. Targeted improvements to erosion
management, signage, and additional seating
near the labyrinth would enhance safety and
usability while preserving the park’s natural
character and visitor experience.

ABOUT THE PARK

EATON PARK
Open Space Area | 65.0 acres
3000 Eaton Avenue

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 688
104 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BRITTAN AVE

BIG CANYON
PARK

HHEATHHERR DOG

EXERCISE AREA

EATON PARK
7 Update trail maps
Existing trail

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 689
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 105
4 Eaton Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Improve fire road with durable surface and eliminate trail head erosion issues for maintenance vehicular access X
2 Improve wayfinding signage X
3 Decommission all informal trails X
4 Add rolling dips on Eaton Trail between Vista Trail and Summit Trail and nearby portion of Vista Trail (where moderate erosion is occurring)
X
5 Add rolling dips on upper section of Summit Trail X
6 Add water bars near Eaton Ave entrance to reduce erosion X 7 Introduce water bars along Hawk Hill trail (if not being paved) X 8 Update trails map to show all existing bench locations X 9 6 8
Reference Images

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 690
106 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Dog run area
Trail path to Porto Marino Lane
Heather Dog Area is a spacious, partially
enclosed park that provides an open
environment for dogs to run, play, and explore.

Located along the western edge of Heather
Elementary School and adjacent to the school
parking lot, the park offers a primarily informal
dog-use setting. The main entry, located on
San Carlos School District property, requires
visitors to descend a wooden staircase, while a
paved path within the site continues down the
hill to Porto Marino Lane. Amenities are limited
and include a bench, a dog waste station, and
a trash receptacle. Most users and their dogs
congregate in the flat dog run area.

The park remains largely undeveloped and
offers minimal amenities. Key challenges
include limited visibility, the lack of a safe and
fully accessible entrance, and aging internal
pathways. Addressing these issues would
improve safety, accessibility, and overall
usability while supporting continued dogfocused recreation.

ABOUT THE PARK

HEATHER DOG EXERCISE
AREA
Special Use Park | 1.5 acres
2757 Melendy Drive
Park entry and signage
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 691
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 107

MELENDY DR

PORTO MARINO LNPORTO MARINO LN
7 7

HEATHER DOG EXERCISE AREA

HHEATHHERR ELEMENTA ELEMENTARRY
SCHOOL 2
Improve visibility
1 Add city
park sign
5 6 Repave pathways
Expand dog park area
7 Rest areas
8 Update
standard
amenities
4 Accessible ramp
Dog Park Area
Picnic Area
Entry/Egress
Paved Path

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 692
108 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Heather Dog Exercise Area Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Rename park and add city standard park sign X
2 Improve visibility and access into the site X
3 Maintain and enhance landscaping within park site, install irrigation system
X
4 Replace staircase with accessible ramp access X
5 Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing X 6 Expand usable dog park area X
7 Add rest areas and restoration planting along trail/open space area
X
8 Add and replace standard amenities (drinking fountain, benches, picnic table, dog waste station, agility course) X
9 Add domestic water source (for drinking fountain) X
10 Install new fence to separate city property from school property X Reference Images
2 6 8
Credit: Burke Play
7 10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 693
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 109
Playground area
Highlands Park is one of the City’s most active
parks, offering a wide range of amenities that
support year-round athletic use. The park
features lighted sports facilities, including two
multi-use fields, the City’s only synthetic turf
field, and tennis courts with dual-striping for
pickleball. Additional amenities include a
playground, picnic areas, a looped walking
path, a Vietnam Memorial, and on-site parking.

Overall, the park is in good condition; however,
the walking paths and field areas at Stadium
Field (North) show noticeable wear from
regular use. Parking is limited and frequently
congested during sporting events, affecting
site access. The pickleball courts are heavily
used and currently share amenities with the
tennis courts, while the picnic area lacks full
accessibility and could be formalized to better
accommodate larger group gatherings.

ABOUT THE PARK

HIGHLANDS PARK
Community Park | 11.3 acres
2600 Melendy Drive
Dual-stripe pickleball/tennis courts
Multi-use synthetic turf field
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 694
110 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ABERDEEN DR

MELENDY DR

HIGHLANDS PARK
3 Bleacher mural project 12
Add backstop
2 Replace bench
1 8
Formalize residential
entrance
2 13
Upgrade playground
10 Resurface pathways
Replace batting cage
surfacing
4 Up to six (6) dedicated
pickleball courts
5 Improve field drainage
6 7
8 7
7 Fitness station
7 7
7 Soccer net
9 11
Extend parking
Formalize picnic
areas
1 Play Area
Picnic Area
Entry/Egress
Paved Path

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 695
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 111
Highlands Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Replace picnic area by Stadium Field into formalized reservable picnic area with accessible path and one (1) ADA table (minimum) X 2 Replace aging benches X
3 Paint a community mural along the bleacher steps at Stadium Field X 4 Replace batting cage surfacing X
5 Restripe the two dual-court tennis/pickleball courts to up to six (6) permanent pickleball courts X
6 Improve field drainage and replace grass turf at Stadium Field X 7 Add fitness station elements along walking path X
8 Formalize pedestrian entrance from Elston Court X
9 Add net at Highlands Field for soccer (6ft net minimum) X 10 Repave pathways around Stadium field with all-weather resilient surfacing X 11 Add parking stalls by converting available unused space into parking, formalize parking along Aberdeen Drive with regulation signage and striping
X
12 Add backstop at northeast corner of Stadium Field to add additional diamond field activities/space X
13 Replace playground after structures are 20 years old X 5 1 3
Reference Images

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 696
112 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Playground
Entry sign and stairs on the south edge
Hillcrest Circle Park is a charming neighborhood
park located on a landscaped “island.” The
park is fully fenced and includes amenities such
as a playground with swings for children ages
5–12, a half basketball court, picnic tables,
flexible lawn space, and benches.

Overall, the park is in fair condition. The
primary concern is the lack of safe pedestrian
crossing opportunities for visitors accessing
the site. Within the park, several amenities
are outdated, and targeted landscape and
amenity improvements would help enhance
safety, functionality, and the overall park
experience.

ABOUT THE PARK

HILLCREST CIRCLE PARK
Mini Park | .20 acres
280 Hillcrest Road
Half-basketball multi-use court
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 697
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 113

HILLCREST RDHILLCREST RD

HIGHLAND AVE
2 HILLCREST CIRCLE PARK
1 Replant landscape
2 Signage
Replace playground
3 3
Play Area
Entry/Egress

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 698
114 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Hillcrest Circle Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Replant landscaping (shrubs, groundcover, re-sod lawn, shade trees) X
2 Improve pedestrian access with informational access signage X 3 Replace playground, incorporate the topography for play elements X
Reference Images
1 2 2
3 10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 699
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 115
Water play area
Laureola Park is located two blocks from
downtown and offers a welcoming setting
for individual play, group recreation, and
organized sports. As the only park serving the
east side of San Carlos, it provides a wide
range of amenities, including a themed
playground, water play features, sports fields/
courts, reservable picnic areas, and restrooms.

The park also includes the Laureola Building,
constructed in 1959, which previously housed a
City-operated preschool and programs serving
residents with special needs. Today, the facility
is generally underutilized, with limited use by
homeschool groups, City summer programs,
and occasional community meetings.

Overall, the park shows typical wear associated
with long-term use. A comprehensive site
master planning process is recommended to
guide coordinated improvements to the park
and its facilities, ensuring future investments
respond to current and future community
needs and support long-term functionality.

ABOUT THE PARK

LAUREOLA PARK
Neighborhood Park | 2.6 acres
503 Old County Road
Playground
Open multi-use field and basketball court
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 700
116 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BAYPORT AVE

HOLLY ST

MC CUE AVE

OLD COUNTY RD

LAUREOLA PARK
6 Recycled water system
3 Shade structure
2 Improve visibility
3 4
Sequoia Union High School parcel
5 Replace building
2 Shade Structure
Entry/Egress

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 701
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 117
Laureola Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Reclassify park to a Community Park X
2 Improve visibility and access from Old County Road and Holly Street X
3 Add shade structure over bleachers X
4 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
X
5 Laureola building to be replaced with new community building through Master Plan process X
6 Replace water circulation for water play element to meet current code requirements X
5 3 2 4
Reference Images
Note: Laureola Park
is recommended for
reclassification as a
Community Park.

While smaller than typical
community parks, the
site includes multiple
elements consistent with
the Community Park
classification described in
Section 3.3.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 702
118 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Playground surrounded by mature trees
Picnic area
Playground
San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park is a
cozy mini park nestled within a residential area.

The park is fully fenced and characterized by
mature redwood trees that provide ample
shade throughout the site. Amenities include a
playground for ages 2–5 surrounded by lawn,
picnic tables with barbecues, and benches.

Located along a busy street, the park
primarily serves nearby residents and currently
experiences low levels of use. Steep terrain
at the rear of the site limits accessibility and
contributes to underutilized space. Overall, the
park is in aging condition and would benefit
from a comprehensive update to address
worn amenities and improve functionality. With
targeted improvements, enhanced amenities,
or the introduction of special uses, the site
has the potential to be reimagined as a more
active and inviting neighborhood asset.

ABOUT THE PARK

SAN CARLOS AVENUE

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Mini Park | 0.3 acres
2451 San Carlos Avenue
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 703
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 119

SAN CARLOS AVE

SAN CARLOS AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
1 New park sign
4 Improve visibility
into the park,
replace fencing
5 3
Replace standard
amenities
Terrace
seating or
play
7 Resurface pathways
6 2
Inclusive playground
Play Area
Picnic Area
Entry/Egress
Terraced Area
Paved Path

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 704
120 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
San Carlos Avenue Neighborhood Park
Proposed Improvements
Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Rename park and update park sign X
2 Replace playground, make inclusive (includes resurfacing to pour-in-place rubber surfacing) X
3 Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables, drinking fountain, trash cans, sign, benches) X
4 Remove overgrown shrubs at the entrance and sidewalk to improve visibility and enhance park entrance X
5 Replace fencing X
6 Repave pathways with all-weather resilient surfacing X 7 Terrace lower portion of the slope for additional seating/picnic area X
Reference Images
6 2 7

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 705
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 121
Vista Park from North Crestview Park
Vista Park is a passive open space located at
the City’s highest summit. The park is defined by
hiking trails, native flora, and sweeping views of
the Peninsula and San Francisco Bay. Benches
and picnic tables provide places for visitors to
rest and enjoy the scenery. Vista Park is located
next to the Devonshire Trail trailhead and across
the street from North Crestview Park, which has
completed a master plan process.

Overall, the park is in good condition,
though some amenities would benefit from
replacement and improved accessibility. As
future development occurs, providing a safe
and direct connection to North Crestview
Park is recommended to improve access and
safety for visitors to both sites. While Vista Park
primarily functions as a passive open space,
the introduction of select active amenities
could broaden its appeal to a wider range of
users while preserving its natural character.

ABOUT THE PARK

VISTA PARK
Neighborhood Park | 3.8 acres
401 Crestview Drive
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Picnic tables
Natural landscaping

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 706
122 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
0 220 FT

CRESTVIEW DR
8 NORRTHH CRRESTVIEW ESTVIEW
PARK

VISTA PARK
6 Formalized picnic area
2 Fitness station area
9 New standard amenities
9 Update flora signage
1 Consolidate signage
3 Interpretive signage
4 Drinking fountain
5 Pedestrian crossing
7 9
Play area
Play Area
Picnic Area
Entry/Egress
Fitness Area

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 707
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 123
Vista Park Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Update floral and plant signage X
2 Add natural theme fitness station elements X
3 Consolidate regulation signage X
4 Add interpretive signage X
5 Add drinking fountain with domestic water source X
6 Replace picnic tables into a formalized, accessible picnic area with shade element X
7 Add crosswalk across Crestview Drive to North Crestview Park X 8 Replace park standard amenities (picnic tables, trash cans, sign, benches, fences) X
9 Add a play structure on site X
2 6 9
Reference Images

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 708
124 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OVERVIEW
San Carlos currently manages four community
facilities and one community meeting room.

This section outlines detailed, site-specific
improvements that complement broader
system-wide recommendations by addressing
the unique characteristics and conditions of
each recreation facility. These improvements
are informed by extensive community input, a
citywide needs assessment, on-site evaluations,
current recreation trends, available funding,
and close collaboration with City staff.

Most of San Carlos’ facilities will benefit from
continued investment in routine maintenance
and the timely repair or replacement of aging
amenities. While several facilities require
regular upgrades, others present opportunities
for larger-scale improvements that can better
respond to evolving community needs. As
San Carlos grows and recreation trends shift
over time, facilities and programming should
continue to evolve to remain aligned with
community priorities.

Estimated costs for recommended
improvements are included in the
Implementation Plan provided in Appendix H.

3.5 RECREATION FACILITY

IMPROVEMENTS
Adult Community Center
Youth Center
Laureola Building Kiwanis Building

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 709
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 125
Social Lounge
Exercise class in the Parkview Room
Built in 1982, the Adult Community Center serves
as an important hub for older adults in San
Carlos, providing programs, activities, and social
opportunities. The facility includes reservable
event spaces, fitness studios, classrooms, a
commercial kitchen, informal gathering areas,
and an outdoor patio and garden that support
both structured programming and casual
social interaction. The Center experiences
consistently high use throughout the year.

The facility is in good physical condition and well
maintained. A renovation completed in 2016
included upgrades to the HVAC system, lighting,
flooring, and kitchen equipment, including the
range and walk-in refrigerator. Looking ahead,
additional kitchen improvements and building
electrification are recommended to support
long-term functionality, improve operational
efficiency, and advance the City’s sustainability
goals.

ABOUT THE FACILITY

ADULT COMMUNITY
CENTER
Recreation Facility | 16,713 SQFT
601 Chestnut Street
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
Kitchen

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 710
126 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
100 ft
SAN
CARLOS
ROOM
GAME
ROOM
PATIO
ROOM

PARKVIEW
ROOM
ELEC

RR RR KITCHEN
STOR
SOCIAL
LOUNGE

CHESTNUT
ROOM
LOBBY

FIREPLACE

RECEPTION
PATIO
GARDEN
Accessible Parking & Drop-Off

DISH ROOM
& LAUNDRY

ACCESSIBLE PATH TO CITY HALL

SAN CARLOS AVE

CHESTNUT ST

ADULT COMMUNITY CENTER

RENOVATE

KITCHEN
1 10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 711
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 127
1 1 2
Reference Images
Adult Community Center Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 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
X
2 Building electrification: as building systems and appliances need replacement, consider all-electric units where feasible X

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 712
128 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff workstations (Arbor Bay School)
Classroom (Arbor Bay School)
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function Recreation
Amenities Landscape
Outdoor activity space
The Kiwanis Building, located within Burton Park,
was constructed in 1953. Renovations to the
restrooms, offices, kitchen, and shared storage
spaces were completed in 1976. For many
years, the building served as the headquarters
for the San Carlos Parks and Recreation
Department. Since 2009, it has been leased to
the Arbor Bay School and repurposed as a K–8
educational facility. This lease is scheduled to
expire in 2027, at which time the building could
transition back to public use.

As the lease term concludes, there is an
opportunity to repurpose the site to better
serve San Carlos residents. The existing building
is outdated and currently underutilized as a
community asset, presenting a strong case for
reinvestment. As a result, this site was identified
as a potential location for a new community
facility and/or aquatic facility. The process
to determine the location of a community
and/or aquatic facility will continue beyond
the adoption of the Master Plan. Due to the
need for additional indoor program space,
the Kiwanis building is recommended to be
replaced with a new building that meets the
needs of the community.

ABOUT THE FACILITY

KIWANIS BUILDING
Recreation Facility | 7,300 SQFT
1017 Cedar Street

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 713
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 129
5 Vexcel Imaging USInc
90 ft
Vexcel Imaging USInc

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

STORAGE
RR RR

KITCHEN
LOBBY

HALL / STAFF

WORKSTATIONS

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

BASEBALL
FIELD

THERAPY ROOM

PATIO PATIO

RECEPTION

TO ACCESSIBLE

PARKING
TENNIS
COURTS

KIWANIS BUILDING

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 714
130 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Reference Images
Kiwanis Building Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 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
2 Construct new community building or facility in the same general footprint as the Kiwanis building X
3 Consider site for new community and/or aquatic facility X

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 715
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 131
Multipurpose Room B
Multipurpose Room A
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape
The San Carlos Public Library includes a
multipurpose community room (divisible into
two rooms) located on the second floor
and managed by the Parks and Recreation
Department. The rooms are available for
public rental and are primarily used for civic,
educational, and meeting purposes by
community organizations and nonprofit groups.

The Parks, Recreation, and Culture Commission
also utilizes the space for public meetings.

The rooms can function as one large space
or be divided into two smaller rooms using a
movable partition. Room A measures 1,224
square feet and Room B measures 784 square
feet, providing a combined total of 2,008
square feet of community meeting space.

A kitchen serving the community rooms was
remodeled in the early 2020s with updated
finishes and appliances.

Overall, the rooms are in good condition.

Additional storage for chairs and tables would
improve functionality and support more
efficient use of the space.

ABOUT THE FACILITY

SAN CARLOS LIBRARY

COMMUNITY ROOM
Recreation Facility | 2,008 SQFT
601 Chestnut Street
Kitchen space

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 716
132 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MULTIPURPOSE
ROOM B

ELEC STOR STOR

MULTIPURPOSE
ROOM A

KITCHEN

BIFOLDING

PARTITION

EXPAND STORAGE
SPACE
1 LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 717
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 133
San Carlos Community Rooms Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Provide improved storage for tables and chairs when not in use X 2 Provide interactive wayfinding signage to direct visitors on the first and second floors in coordination with the library X
3 Replace flooring X
1 2

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 718
134 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Indoor gym
Les Mundell Grove
Lobby
The Youth Center was built in 1999 and
renovated in 2018, and serves children and
young teens in San Carlos. Programs include
after-school drop-in time, organized camps
during school breaks, family open-gym time,
movie nights, and dances. Adult use was
additionally introduced in 2018, during periods
not utilized by youth. The center also features a
picnic grove with picnic areas and open lawn
space that supports outdoor activities and
informal gathering.

The 2018 renovation included a reconfigured
front desk, improved backpack and coat
storage, updated finishes, and new gym
equipment. Overall, the facility is in good
condition. However, targeted improvements—
such as modernizing equipment, strengthening
connections to the outdoor picnic grove, and
revitalizing interior spaces for youth activities—
would enhance functionality and the overall
user experience. Additional facility upgrades
may also be needed to meet current building
code and accessibility standards.

ABOUT THE FACILITY

YOUTH CENTER
Recreation Facility | 14,485 SQFT
1001 Chestnut Street
Overall Site Rating

SITE FEATURE RATINGS
Access & Function
Amenities
Recreation
Landscape

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 719
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 135
BOY’S RESTROOM
GIRL’S RESTROOM
STOR
DANCE
STUDIO
GYM
LOBBY
ZEN
DEN
GAME
ROOM

BASEBALL
FIELD

KITCHEN

GYM STORAGE

COPY ROOM

STAFF OFFICES

ACCESSIBLE

PARKING

HOMEWORK
ROOM

ART ROOM

INDOOR-OUTDOOR

CONNECTION DOORS
5 LES MUNDELL PICNIC
GROVE OUTDOOR “LIVING
ROOM” SPACE
4 4
3 6

YOUTH CENTER

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 720
136 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Youth Center Proposed Improvements Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
1 Install large digital displays and new AV equipment in all program rooms
X
2 Replace HVAC system X
3 Improve the acoustical separation of the Zen Den from the adjacent Game Room X
4 Install doors at program rooms adjacent to the Les Mundell Picnic Grove to facilitate indoor-outdoor connection X
5 Redesign the Les Mundell Picnic Grove into an “outdoor living room” with seating and lounging opportunities, can include outdoor games
X
6 Renovate the restrooms to address deficiencies and provide:
accessible clearance at all fixtures and new, easy to clean finishes
X
7 Building electrification: as building systems and appliances need replacement, consider all-electric units that are appropriately sized to meet building demand
X
1 4 5
Reference Images

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 721
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 137

3.6 FUTURE PARK AND

FACILITY OPPORTUNITIES

OVERVIEW
As San Carlos continues to grow and evolve,
additional parks, open spaces, and recreation
facilities will be needed to support future
residents and maintain a high quality of life.

This section highlights potential parkland and
facility opportunities associated with planned
development, ongoing planning efforts, and
identified community needs. Together, these
opportunities complement the site-specific
recommendations outlined earlier in this
chapter and help position the City to meet
long-term recreation demands.

PLANNED PARKLAND
Recent and approved private development
projects on the east side of the City include
Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA)
open spaces. These spaces are expected to
provide new opportunities for both passive and
active recreation, including trail connections
along local creeks. As San Carlos approaches
a projected population of 46,450 residents by
2045, POPA spaces can play an important
role in expanding access to open space and
recreation opportunities.

Collectively, these additional parkland areas
will help extend access to green space across
the City and support more equitable distribution
of recreational amenities for both existing and
future residents.

Northeast Area Specific Plan (2026)
The Northeast Area Specific Plan, slated for
adoption in 2026, intends to incorporate public
open space within the planning area and a
greenway trail along Belmont Creek.

Policy 4.7.2 Minimum Publicly Accessible
Open Space
A community park/open space shall be
provided that meets the following design
criteria:
• Is a minimum of 15% or 10% percent of
site area depending on the total lot size;
• Is located at ground level with direct
pedestrian and American with Disabilities
Act (ADA) access to the adjacent public
street;
• Is unenclosed by any wall, fence, gate,
or other obstruction across the subject
property;
• Is open to the public, without charge,
each day of the year, except for
temporary closures for necessary
maintenance or public safety;
• Water quality facilities that include
recreational facilities, (e.g., underground
detention basins with recreational facilities
above) may count towards the minimum
park space requirement.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 722
138 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
The planned public open space should be
classified as a Community Park and designed
in accordance with the Park Design Principles
and Considerations (Section 3.2) and the
Park Classifications outlined in Section 3.3. To
support future Level of Service needs, the park
should include a mix of active and passive
amenities, such as a play area, a multi-use field,
a basketball court, and pickleball courts, along
with reservable picnic areas and restroom
facilities. In addition, a small off-leash dog area
should be incorporated within the park or the
surrounding development to serve pet owners
in the area.

East Side Innovation District
Vision Plan (2021)
The East Side Innovation District (ESID) Vision
Plan, adopted in 2021, envisions the creation
of linear parks along former rail corridors
and the transformation of the City-owned
corporation yard into a public park. Converting
the corporation yard into parkland would help
relieve capacity pressures at Laureola Park by
expanding outdoor recreation opportunities for
East Side residents, increasing overall parkland
level of service, and improving the distribution
of parks and amenities across the City.

Open Space and Environment Goal 2:

Establish an Open Space Network
• Study the potential of relocating the Cityowned corporation yard and repurposing some or all of the site into a community
open space or linear park.
• Implement the “discovery path” (a linear
park with a minimum width of 44 feet
and both circulation and landscaping
elements).

Recommendation
Parks developed within the East Side
Innovation District should be classified as
Mini Parks, Neighborhood Parks, or Privately
Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) spaces, as
appropriate to their size, function, and context.

Each park should include the standard baseline
amenities associated with its classification, as
outlined in Section 3.3 of this chapter.

Figure 4-1: East Side Innovation District Vision Plan
open space illustration
Figure 4-2: East Side Innovation District Vision Plan
open space illustration

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 723
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 139
Downtown Specific Plan (2026)
The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 2026,
includes plans for new public plazas designed
to support recreation, community events,
and social gathering. Proposed features
include flexible event space, gathering areas,
restrooms, and programming opportunities.

Planned improvements would reimagine the
site as a pedestrian-oriented plaza featuring
tree canopy, seating areas, and restroom
facilities, connecting to the 700 block of
Laurel Street improvements which feature a
performance stage and fountain element (see
Figure 4-3). Construction of improvements to
Frank D. Harrington Park are commencing in
2026.

Recommendations
Frank D. Harrington Park is currently classified
as a Mini Park and is recommended for
reclassification as a Special Use Park. The
park should function as a civic gathering
space capable of hosting events such as
fairs, concerts, and community celebrations,
while providing standard amenities including
seating, trash and recycling receptacles, and
wayfinding signage.

Figure 4-3: Proposed Frank D. Harrington Park redesign (Credit: WRT, LLC 2025)

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 724
140 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SYSTEM-WIDE
The following recommendations apply across
the San Carlos parks and recreation system and
may be implemented at parks and facilities
where feasible.

Inclusive Programs
• Partner with local nonprofit organizations
or establish reciprocal membership
agreements with neighboring jurisdictions,
such as Redwood City, to expand adaptive
and inclusive recreation programs for
individuals with special needs.
eGaming
• Expand eGaming and eSports offerings and
explore AI-assisted programming for all ages.

These programs can utilize indoor facilities
that are less constrained than outdoor and
field spaces, helping diversify programming,
increase facility use, and support revenue
generation.

Youth Programs
• Integrate youth volunteers into recreation
programming and engage the Youth
Advisory Council to identify meaningful
leadership and service opportunities for
teens.
• Expand the Youth Advisory Council’s role
to include a Youth in Government program
focused on civic engagement and
participation in local decision-making.
• Introduce rotating seasonal block parties
at parks throughout the city to engage
residents of all ages and neighborhoods.

Events could include food trucks, vendors,
games, and live music.

Joint Use Agreements
Continue to partner with the San Carlos School
District through Joint Use Agreements to support
shared use of facilities and coordinated field
maintenance, and explore opportunities to
expand public access where feasible.

3.7 RECREATION AND PARK

PROGRAMMING
Inclusive programs
eGaming

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 725
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 141

SITE-SPECIFIC

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations provide site
specific programming recommendations for
dog parks, Arguello Park, Highlands Park, the
Youth and Adult Community Centers, and the
open space areas.

Dog Parks
• Develop a “Paws in the Park” social hour,
training demonstrations, and dog-friendly
games. Coordinate dog park events with
local adoption or rescue groups.
• Create dog training and behavior
workshops that rotate between dog
parks, the agility course, and open space
trailheads. Trainings could include puppy
basics and leash training, managing
reactive behavior, and trail etiquette.
• Create a dog and owner fitness class.

Arguello Park
• Introduce adventure-based learning, such
as a bike skills workshop or nature survival
games, leveraging the pump track, mini
ropes course, and open space.
• Expand adult fitness programming to
include options that accommodate
preschool-age children, such as classes
that allow guardians to participate with
their children.
• Incorporate the mini ropes course into the
City’s standard playground inspection
and maintenance program. Practices
should include routine visual inspections,
periodic safety reviews, maintenance
in accordance with manufacturer
specifications, compliant fall surfacing,
and age-appropriate signage consistent
with other playground equipment.
• Conduct regular professional inspections
of the mini ropes course by accredited
organizations such as the Association for
Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) or
the Professional Ropes Course Association
(PRCA), with operations aligned to the
Department’s broader risk management
practices.
• Develop inspection and maintenance
requirements for the pump track, tailored
to surface type: Natural surface pump
tracks require erosion and drainage
management, surface compaction
and restoration, signage, trash removal,
regular raking and touch-ups, and dust
mitigation through surface watering.

Hard surface pump tracks require lowerintensity maintenance, such as surface cleaning, edge and pothole repairs, and
routine upkeep.
• Increase park maintenance staffing
by one (1) full-time equivalent (FTE) to
Dog training program address the added workload associated

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 726
142 CHAPTER 3: VISION, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
with the mini ropes course and pump
track. If the pump track is constructed
with a natural surface, an additional

0.5 FTE should be considered to support
increased day-to-day maintenance
needs.

Big Canyon and Eaton Parks
• Add the recommended restroom facility
at Big Canyon Park to the existing
custodial services contract to ensure
consistent maintenance and operations.
• Establish a trail running or hiking club
that rotates meeting locations across the
City’s park system. The program may be
led by trained volunteers or contracted
instructors and should incorporate
seasonal themes such as night hikes, local
history, trail etiquette, nature scavenger
hunts, hiking safety, and culturally
responsive topics to engage participants
of all ages.

Burton Park
• Introduce intergenerational fitness
programs aligned with the National
Recreation and Park Association’s (NRPA)
emphasis on multigenerational health and
wellness.
• Launch a seasonal event series, such
as Cultural Nights at Burton or Teen
Takeover, to attract underserved age
groups, including middle and high school
students.

Highlands Park
• Develop a youth sports conditioning
program, such as NRPA-endorsed “Boost
Camps,” for children ages 9–12, with a
focus on injury prevention, agility, and
foundational athletic skills.
• Create a seasonal adult pickleball league
that includes beginner clinics and family
doubles days to support inclusive, skillbased participation. • Offer teen-focused fitness and mindfulness
programs near the walking loop,
integrating physical activity with mental
wellness.

Laureola Park
• Introduce a Pop-Up Theater in the Park
program as a low-barrier opportunity
for youth and seniors to engage in
performing arts. Programming could
include improvisation workshops,
Shakespeare in the Park, and other free
community performances. Residents
should be encouraged to bring picnics
and seating, with optional food trucks and
vendors to support community gathering.

Fitness programs in the park

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 727
DRAFT SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 143
Adult Community Center (ACC)
• Introduce intergenerational programs that
bring seniors and younger participants
together through activities such as
storytelling, art exchanges, collaborative
gardening, and shared creative projects.
• Consider developing intergenerational
preschool programs that intentionally
engage seniors alongside youth and
preschool-age children through activities
such as reading, crafts, and storytelling.

Youth Center
• Expand technology and digital media
programming, including podcasting,
gaming tournaments, and video editing
labs, to support skill-building and creative
expression.
• Host youth town halls and civic
engagement programs aligned with NRPA
best practices to promote leadership,
advocacy, and participation in local
government. Engage the Youth Advisory
Council in program design and outreach.
• Introduce a screen-free social club
focused on games, book exchanges, and
wellness activities to encourage in-person
social interaction and peer connection.
• Partner with library activities including use
of maker space.

Teens art mural project at Carpinteria Arts Center

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 728
End of Chapter 3: Vision, Goals, and
Recommendations.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 729

4. IM

PLEMENTATION

4.1 Implementation Plan

4.2 Maintenance Plan

4.3 Funding Strategy

4.4 Parks and Recreation Revenue

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 730
This chapter provides a blueprint for
implementing future enhancements to
the San Carlos parks and recreation
system.

Implementation 4

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 731
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 147

4.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

INTRODUCTION
This Implementation chapter outlines how
the vision and recommendations of the
Parks Master Plan will be carried forward
through a clear, actionable framework to
guide park and recreation investments in
the City of San Carlos over the next 20 years.

As a living document, the Master Plan is
intended to remain responsive to changing
conditions, opportunities, resources, trends,
and community needs. To ensure continued
relevance, implementation priorities and
evaluation criteria should be revisited
approximately every three to five years.

As circumstances evolve, the relative priority
and timing of recommended improvements
may shift. The implementation criteria
presented in this chapter are designed to
support informed decision-making and help
identify projects that make the most effective
use of available resources. The Action Plan
organizes recommended actions into short-,
mid-, long-term, and ongoing time frames
to support strategic planning and phased
implementation.

Successful implementation will rely on a
combination of funding sources, including
the City’s General Fund, departmental
revenues, development impact fees, grants,
and partnerships. Probable cost estimates for
recommended improvements are based on
2025 construction and implementation costs
and are intended for planning purposes only.

As projects move toward implementation,
these estimates should be refined to reflect
inflation, market conditions, and projectspecific considerations.

Short Term
Improvements that can be implemented or
initiated within the next five years, based
on available funding, community priorities,
and alignment with citywide goals.

Mid Term
Improvements that can be implemented or
initiated within the next five to ten years
and may require additional funding or
staffing planning, reflect lower community
priority, or address needs that are not
immediate.

Long Term
Improvements that can be implemented
or initiated within the next 10 to 20 years.

These projects are typically larger in
scale, require substantial funding and
staffing planning, or involve sites that do
not currently require enhancement due to
recent improvements.

Implementation Plan
• Action Plan
• Prioritization Sites and Actions
• Maintenance Plan
• Staffing Strategies
• Capital Improvement Costs
• Funding Strategies
• Cost Recovery

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 732
148 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

ACTION PLAN
The Action Plan provides a prioritization
framework to guide phased implementation
of Parks Master Plan improvements as funding
and resources become available. Priorities
reflect community input, established goals,
existing conditions, project timing, and overall
feasibility.

Rather than prescribing a fixed sequence of
implementation, the framework is intended
to support informed decision-making. As
funding opportunities arise, the City should
pursue projects that are most impactful and
competitive, while remaining responsive
to changing conditions and emerging
opportunities.

The site-specific Action Plan is presented in
Appendix H and is intended to support the
City’s capital improvement planning and
annual budgeting efforts. Projects should
continue to be evaluated over time based
on recreation trends, community demand,
facility usage, maintenance needs, and
available funding
Current Projects
In addition to the recommended actions, the
City is advancing several park and recreation
projects that are already underway or
anticipated in the near term. These efforts
align with the Parks Master Plan’s goals and
represent early progress toward its longterm vision. Acknowledging current projects helps ensure continuity, avoid duplication,
and support coordinated and efficient
implementation.

Current projects as of Fiscal Year 2025-2026
include the following:
• Frank D. Harrington Park redesign
through the Downtown Specific Plan
• Northeast Area Specific Plan, which
includes new park acreage and open
space areas along Belmont Creek
• Landslide repairs at Arguello Park,
Chilton Park, and Eaton Park
Prioritization Criteria
The following criteria informed the prioritization
analysis and should guide future decisionmaking:
• Advance goals of the Parks Master Plan
• Respond to identified community
priorities
• Address documented system
deficiencies and needs
• Improve existing park and facility
conditions
• Enhance accessibility, inclusivity, and
equity
• Align with other City initiatives and
capital projects
• Consider funding availability and
budget constraints
• Minimize long-term operating and
maintenance costs
• Support opportunities for revenue
generation, where appropriate
• Leverage time-sensitive opportunities
• Prioritize projects that are feasible, costeffective, and readily implementable Site Specific Priorities
Park- and facility-specific recommendations
were prioritized through a comprehensive
evaluation of proposed improvements across
the San Carlos parks and recreation system. A
prioritization matrix was used to assign relative
value to each project based on its alignment
with the established criteria. The matrix is
intended to function as a decision-support
tool rather than a prescriptive implementation
sequence.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 733
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 149
As funding opportunities emerge, the City
should remain flexible and pursue projects
that are most impactful, competitive, and
aligned with available resources and current
community priorities. This approach informs
the Action Plan provided in Appendix H.

PRIORITIZATION
Site Prioritization
To help focus the City’s efforts, project scores
were evaluated at the site level to identify
locations with the greatest potential to deliver
community benefit. For each site, the total
points assigned to individual projects were
averaged by dividing the cumulative score
by the number of recommended projects. This
approach highlights priority locations while
accounting for the range of improvements
proposed at each site.

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 display the prioritization
rankings for all sites. These findings indicate
that, as funding becomes available, the
City should prioritize investment in its most
heavily used parks and recreation facilities to
maximize community benefit and address the
greatest demand.

Project Prioritization
It is important to note that some parks
received lower prioritization scores due to
the limited scope of improvements identified
at those sites. Locations such as Hillcrest
Circle Park and the San Carlos Community
Rooms include smaller-scale projects, such
as landscaping enhancements or the
installation of wayfinding signage, that can
be implemented quickly and at relatively
low cost. While these improvements may not
rank highly due to their limited alignment
with multiple Master Plan goals or broader
community priorities, they may still be
advanced at the City’s discretion based on
operational needs or available resources.

To further support informed decision-making,
a project prioritization matrix is provided for
reference on the following pages in Table
4-3. This matrix summarizes typical project
priority levels based on existing site conditions
and identified community needs across San
Carlos parks and facilities.

Table 4-1: Prioritization ranking for parks

PRIORITIZATION RANKINGS

EXISTING PARKS
SITE

RANK SITE AVG POINTS
1 Arguello Park 99
2 Highlands Park 85
3 Burton Park 64
4 Laureola Park 61
5 Vista Park 58
6 Big Canyon Park 53
7 Heather Dog Park 52
8 San Carlos Ave Park 46
9 Eaton Park 38
10 Crestview Park 34
11 Cedar Street Park 31
12 City Hall Dog Park 27
13 Hillcrest Circle Park 21
Table 4-2: Prioritization ranking for facilities

PRIORITIZATION RANKINGS

EXISTING FACILITIES
SITE

RANK SITE
AVG
POINTS
1 Adult Community Center 44
2 Youth Center 35
3 Kiwanis Building 24
4 Laureola Park Building 13
5 Library Community Room 13

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 734
150 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-3: Project priority matrix
Recreation
Amenities Goal Alignment Priority Term Cost Estimate
Community and/or
Aquatic Center
Recreation
Inclusivity High Long $$$$
Formalized Trails Recreation
Health High ShortMid $$
Gathering / Picnic
Areas Accessibility High ShortMid $
Playgrounds Recreation
Accessibility High Ongoing $$
Multi-use Paved
Pathways Accessibility High
Short
Mid
Long
$-$$
Outdoor Pickleball
Courts Recreation Medium Mid $$
Open Space and
Conservation Areas
Recreation
Sustainability High Ongoing $
Outdoor Tennis Courts Recreation Low Mid $
Shade Structures Accessibility
Health High
Short
Mid
Long
$
Off-leash Dog Areas Recreation High Ongoing $$
Outdoor Amphitheater Recreation Low Long $$
Public Art Inclusivity
Civic Pride High Ongoing $-$$
Multi-use Courts Recreation
Accessibility Medium Ongoing $$
Indoor Gymnasium Recreation High Long $$
Mini Parks Enhanced System High Ongoing $$$$
All-Abilities Equipment Recreation
Inclusivity Medium Long
Ongoing $$$

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 735
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 151
Recreation
Amenities Goal Alignment Priority Term Cost Estimate
Outdoor Fitness
Equipment / Stations
Recreation
Health Medium Ongoing $-$$
Water Play Recreation
Inclusivity High Long $$$
Basketball Courts Recreation Low Mid $
Diamond Field Recreation
Accessibility Medium MidLong $$
Rectangular Field Recreation Medium Mid
Long $$
Community Parks Enhanced System Medium Ongoing $$$$

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 736
152 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

STAFFING STRATEGIES
The follow staffing enhancements are
recommended in the planning of future
park, facility, and recreation programming
expansion over the next 20 years.

1. Expand Recreation staffing by adding
two (2) full-time positions to meet
growing demand and expansion of
programs across all recreation divisions.

2. Expand Park Maintenance staffing by
adding one (1) full-time equivalent
(FTE) for developed parkland and one
(1) FTE for undeveloped open space.

Alternatively, consider additional
contracted maintenance services.

3. As new developed parks are added
to the City’s asset portfolio, maintain a
minimum staffing ratio of one (1) FTE per
five (5) acres to sustain current service
levels.

4. Consider hiring or contracting a fulltime Certified Arborist for tree-related functions in parks, city medians, and
city-wide needs.

5. Evaluate staffing needs based on
landscape design decisions. The use
of annuals, perennials, mulch, and
specialty materials will influence
maintenance demands and may require
additional in-house or contracted staff.

6. Hire additional staff if new community
facility and new aquatic facility are
constructed.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 737
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 153

4.2 MAINTENANCE PLAN

MAINTENANCE PLAN &

STRATEGIES
Maintenance is fundamental to preserving
the San Carlos parks and recreation system
and ensuring that parks and facilities remain
safe, clean, and accessible for public use.

Ongoing maintenance supports public health
and safety and requires regular attention to
sanitation, repairs, and upkeep across the
system, primarily by City staff in the Public
Works Department.

Proactive maintenance also protects City
assets by extending the lifespan of facilities,
reducing long-term costs, and minimizing
liability. The Maintenance and Lifecycle Plan
(Table 4-4) summarizes key maintenance tasks,
recommended service frequencies, typical
costs, and the estimated life expectancy of
common park elements to support long-term
planning and budgeting.

The cost figures included in this Plan are
planning-level estimates intended for
general guidance. They are based on recent
landscape and park-related projects from
2024–2025 and should be refined as projects
move toward implementation.

A series of park maintenance and staffing
strategies are recommended to support the
long-term success of the San Carlos parks
and recreation system. These strategies
focus on improving operational efficiency,
enhancing safety, and aligning staffing
resources with system demands as the park
system evolves. By addressing workload
distribution, maintenance practices, and cost
considerations, the Plan supports consistent,
high-quality maintenance and positive user
experiences over time.

The Maintenance Plan provides
guidance on the following park
assets:
• Amenities
• Athletic Fields
• Sports Courts
• Children Play Areas
• Special Use Areas
• Restrooms
• Water Features
• Pathways
• Roads
• Lighting
• Planting and Irrigation
The Maintenance and Lifecycle
Plan (Table 4-4) references units.

The following abbreviations are
utilized:

EA = Each
LF = Linear Feet
LS = Lump Sum
SQ = Square-Feet

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 738
154 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Park Maintenance Strategies

1. Upon installing new equipment, establish
maintenance and repair contracts
with appropriate vendors to protect
new assets. Each asset should include
a maintenance plan and replacement
schedule based on its estimated useful
life. Low-frequency inspections should
be conducted by a Certified Playground
Safety Inspector, with additional highfrequency inspections performed by Park Maintenance staff.

2. Once maintenance contracts
are in place, program preventive
maintenance activities into the Lucity
system to ensure work is completed as
scheduled and to reduce time demands
on existing Public Works staff.

3. Develop a performance management
system to track and address staffing
shortfalls and service-level issues
related to the City’s primary landscape
maintenance contractors.

4. Consider dividing existing maintenance
contracts into smaller geographic
zones to increase competition, provide
redundancy when contractors are shortstaffed, and improve overall service reliability.

5. Incorporate operational and
maintenance impacts into major capital
project planning so that adequate
funding is budgeted for ongoing service
expansions, particularly related to
landscape maintenance.

6. Program landscape maintenance
inspections into the Lucity system to
document work performed by both
in-house staff and contractors and to
monitor contractor performance.

Landscaping crew

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 739
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 155
Table 4-4: Maintenance and Lifecycle Plan
Amenities
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Bench Repair / Refinish X EA $500 Ongoing
Maintenance
Bench Replacement X EA $3,500 20
Bicycle Rack
Replacement X EA $2,500 20
Dog Waste Bag Dispenser
Replacement X EA $1,500 10
Drinking Fountain
Replacement X EA $12,500 20
Entrance Signage
Replacement X EA $17,500 20
Fencing - Ornamental
Metal - Finish Repair X LF $25 Ongoing
Maintenance
Fencing - Wood X LS $800 15-20
Fencing - Chain Link X LF $6 20
Fitness Equipment Repair/
Refinish X EA $1,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Fitness Equipment
Replacement X EA $12,000 35
Game Table Repair /
Refinish X EA $750 Ongoing
Maintenance
Game Table
Replacement X EA $3,500 20
Interpretive Signage
Replacement X EA $3,500 20
Large BBQ & Ash
Receptacle X EA $5,000 20
Message Kiosk
Replacement X LS $20,000 20
Picnic Table Repair /
Refinish X EA $750 Ongoing
Maintenance
Picnic Table
Replacement X EA $4,500 20
Regulation Signage
Replacement X EA $35 20
Shade Sail Structure
Replacement X LS $45,000 20
Shade Sail, Replace
Fabrics X SF $45 10
Shade Structure - Wood
Or Metal - Replace X SF $175 35

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 740
156 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Amenities (Cont.)
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Shade Structure - Wood
Or Metal - Repair Finish X EA $5,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Small BBQ Replacement
and Ash Receptacle X EA $3,500 20
Wayfinding Signage
Replacement X LS $2,000 20
Athletic Fields
Backstop Repair X EA $1,500 Ongoing
Maintenance
Backstop Replacement X EA $60,000 25
Batting Cage and
Pitching Mound
Replacement
X LS $20,000 10
Bleacher Replacement X EA $20,000 25
Dugout Repair (fence
repair) X SF $1,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Dugout Replacement X EA $65,000 50
Fencing Repair X LF $35 Ongoing
Maintenance
Fencing Replacement X LF $150 25
Field Lighting - Replace
Conductors And
Conduits
X LF $155 25
Field Lighting Fixture
Replacement - Energy
Efficient
X EA $25,000 25
Field Lighting Pole
Replacement X EA $125,000 50
Field Lighting Relamping X EA $3,000 3
Infield Mix Replenishment X SF $3 Ongoing
Maintenance
Irrigation System Repair X SF $3 Ongoing
Maintenance
Irrigation System
Replacement X SF $6 15
PA Replacement X EA $7,500 25

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 741
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 157
Athletic Fields (Cont.)
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Scoreboard
Replacement X EA $40,000 25
Soccer Field Net
Replacement X LS $300 5
Soccer Goal
Replacement X EA $15,000 10
Synthetic Turf Removal
And Replacement X SF $15 10
Turf Renovation - Top
Dressing, Overseeding X SF $0.50 Ongoing
Maintenance
Turf Replacement X SF $3 15
Sports Courts
Basketball Court Overlay X SF $14 10
Basketball Court
Replacement X EA $8 20
Bocce Court - Replenish
Surface X SF $3 Ongoing
Maintenance
Bocce Court
Replacement X EA $7,500 15
Court Lighting - Fixture
Replacement - Energy
Efficient
X EA $25,000 20
Court Lighting -
Relamping X EA $1,500 5
Hoops, Nets &
Miscellaneous Court
Amenities
X EA $10,000 10
Pickleball Court - Repair/
Restripe X SF $6 5
Pickleball Court
Replacement (includes
netting, fencing, striping)
X EA $150,000 20
Tennis Court - Repair/
Restripe X SF $6 5
Tennis Court
Replacement X EA $150,000 20

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 742
158 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Children’s Play Area
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Equipment Repair X - Varies Ongoing
Maintenance
Equipment Replacement X SF $300 Ongoing
Maintenance
Resilient Surfacing
Replacement X SF $50 15
Wood fiber Surfacing
Replenishment X SF $6 1
Sand Box Replacement
with Resilient Surfacing X SF $50 Ongoing
Maintenance
Special Use Areas
Bench Replacement X EA $3,500 20
Fencing Replacement X LF $125 20
Gate Replacement X LF $4,000 20
Pump Track repair
(asphalt repair) X LS $10,000 20
Sink Replacement X EA $10,000 25
Splash pad Recirculation
System (prefab) X LS $500,000 25
Table Replacement X EA $4,500 20
Trash Receptacle
Replacement X EA $2,500 20
Water System Repair X LS $1,500 Ongoing
Maintenance
Restrooms
Modify ADA restroom
hand dryer X EA $3,000 10
New pre-fabricated
restroom X EA $550,000 25
Repaint exterior wall X SF $5 10
Repaint interior finish,
concrete/masonry X SF $3 8
Repaint interior ceiling
finish, Exposed/Generic X SF $6 10
Repaint interior floor
finish, elastomeric
coating
X SF $25 10

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 743
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 159
Restrooms (Cont.)
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Replace distribution
panel 100 AMP X EA $15,000 30
Replace Exterior steel
door X EA $5,000 25
Replace floor drain X EA $600 30
Replace Fluorescent
lighting X EA $500 20
Replace gutters and
downspout, Aluminum X LF $22 10
Replace metal roof X SF $22 40
Replace modified
bituminous roof X SF $15 20
Replace stainless steel
sink/lavatory X EA $3,000 20
Replace stainless steel
toilet X EA $3,500 25
Replace stainless steel
urinal X EA $3,500 20
Replace window X EA $2,500 30
Replace wood shake
roof X SF $12 25
Water Features
Fountain - Aerator Repair X LS $5,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Fountain - Aerator
Replacement X EA $65,000 35
Pathways
Asphalt Paving Overlay X SF $5 10
Asphalt Paving Repair X SF $3 Ongoing
Maintenance
Asphalt Paving
Replacement X SF $8 20
Concrete Mow Band
Replacement X LF $65 50
Concrete Paving Repair -
Replace Damaged Areas X SF $35 Ongoing
Maintenance
Concrete Paving
Replacement X SF $35 50
Concrete Seatwall
Replacement X LF $450 50

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 744
160 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Pathways (Cont.)
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Decomposed Granite
Paths - Excavate /
Replace
X SF $13 15
Decomposed Granite
Paths - Replenish / Fine
Grade
X SF $2 Ongoing
Maintenance
Header Board
Replacement X LF $15 15
Bollard replacement X EA $2,000 15-20
Roads
Asphalt Paving Overlay -
2 Inches X SF $5 10
Asphalt Paving
Replacement X SF $10 20
Concrete Curb and
Gutter Replacement X LF $110 50
Concrete Curb
Replacement X LF $100 50
Traffic Sign Replacement X EA $1,500 10
Lighting
Parking Lot Lighting -
Fixture Replacement -
Energy Efficient
X EA $15,000 20
Parking Lot Lighting -
Relamping X EA $1,500 5
Parking Lot Lighting -
Replace Conductors And
Conduits
X LF $175 50
Pathway Lighting -
Replace Conductors And
Conduits
X LF $175 50
Pathway Lighting - Fixture
Replacement X EA $3,000 20
Pathway Lighting - Pole
Replacement X EA $12,000 50
Pathway Lighting -
Relamping X EA $1,500 5

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 745
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 161
Planting and
Irrigation
Frequency (years)
Unit Unit Cost Life Expectancy
(years) 1 5 10 15 20+
Groundcover - Replace
Woody/Overgrown Areas X SF $5 10
Irrigation Controller
Replacement X LS $35,000 25
Irrigation System Repair X SF $3 Ongoing
Maintenance
Irrigation System
Replacement - Large Turf
Or Planting Area
X SF $5 25
Irrigation System
Replacement - Small Turf
Or Planting Area
X SF $11 25
Mulch - Replenish- 3"
thick X SF $2 10
Ornamental Grass -
Replace Dead Clumps X EA $15 10
Shrubs - Replace Woody/
Overgrown Shrubs X SF $5 Ongoing
Maintenance
Tree - 15 Gallon
Replacement X EA $350 Ongoing
Maintenance
Tree - 24 box
Replacement X EA $650 Ongoing
Maintenance
Tree - 36 box
Replacement X EA $2,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Tree - 48 box Replacement X EA $3,500 Ongoing
Maintenance
Tree Pruning X EA $1,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Tree Removal X EA $3,000 Ongoing
Maintenance
Turf - Remove And
Replace Sod X SF $3 15
Turf - Topdressing And
Overseeding X SF $1 Ongoing
Maintenance

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 746
162 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

4.3 FUNDING STRATEGY

OVERVIEW
To support implementation of the Parks
Master Plan, the City may need to diversify
and expand funding sources to sustain
existing facilities, support ongoing operations
and maintenance, and advance future
investments—such as a potential aquatic
or community center. This section outlines
anticipated funding needs and summarizes
current and potential funding strategies to
support both near-term actions and longterm system goals.

While not exhaustive, the funding approaches
described reflect a range of available options
and acknowledge that funding mechanisms
may continue to evolve over time. The City
should remain proactive in identifying and
pursuing funding opportunities that help
maintain a high standard of quality across its
parks, facilities, and recreation programming.

Funding Requirements
An evaluation of park maintenance and
recreation operations identified the need for
additional staffing to support system-wide
service demands. The Plan recommends
adding approximately 2.0 full-time equivalent
(FTE) positions for park maintenance and 2.0
FTE positions to support parks and recreation.

Together, these four positions would
require an estimated annual expenditure
of approximately $560,000 in direct labor,
salaries, and benefits, in addition to the City’s
indirect costs.

Beyond these operational needs, additional
parks and open space may be developed
or dedicated to the City through future
development associated with the General
Plan Update, Innovation District Vision Plan,
Downtown Specific Plan, and Northeast Area
Specific Plan. Any new facilities will require
corresponding operations and maintenance
resources to ensure long-term success. As
new parkland is added, maintenance staffing
should be provided, either through City staff
or contracted services, at an approximate
ratio of one FTE per five acres to maintain
current service levels.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Parks Master Plan identifies approximately
$90 million in desired park and facility capital
improvements (Table 4-8). Of this total, four
park projects—estimated at $47 million—are
identified as the highest priorities (Table 4-5).

Table 4-5: Prioritization costs for parks

PRIORITIZATION RANKINGS

EXISTING PARKS
SITE

RANK SITE NAME
TOTAL

IMPROVEMENTS
COST
1 Arguello Park $3,430,000
2 Highlands Park $5,320,000
3 Burton Park $22,900,000
4 Laureola Park $15,000,000
TOTAL $46,650,000

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 747
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 163
Table 4-6: Parks Capital Improvement Plan
Park Name Short Mid Long Subtotal Soft Cost TOTAL
Arguello Park $880,000 $860,000 $800,000 $2,540,000 $889,000 $3,429,000 Big Canyon Park $80,000 $570,000 $650,000 $227,500 $877,500 Burton Park $665,000 $10,500,000 $5,800,000 $16,965,000 $5,937,750 $22,902,750 Cedar Street Park $1,800,000 $550,000 $2,350,000 $822,500 $3,172,500 Chilton Park Improvements recently completed under separate planning process City Hall Dog Park $120,000 $1,000,000 $1,120,000 $392,000 $1,512,000 Crestview Park $920,000 $50,000 $970,000 $339,500 $1,309,500 Eaton Park $305,000 $35,000 $340,000 $119,000 $459,000
Frank D. Harrington
Park Improvements under separate planning process
Heather Dog Area $320,000 $870,000 $1,190,000 $416,500 $1,606,500 Highlands Park $290,000 $3,650,000 $3,940,000 $1,379,000 $5,319,000 Hillcrest Circle Park $150,000 $1,000,000 $1,150,000 $402,500 $1,552,500 Laureola Park $315,000 $10,000,000 $800,000 $11,115,000 $3,890,250 $15,005,250 North Crestview
Park Improvements under separate planning process
Rosek Park No improvements
San Carlos Avenue
Neighborhood
Park
$810,000 $810,000 $283,500 $1,093,500
Vista Park $85,000 $440,000 $525,000 $183,750 $708,750
TOTAL $4,940,000 $29,775,000 $8,950,000 $43,665,000 $15,282,750 $58,947,750 *Disclaimer: Costs are rounded to nearest hundredth for planning purposes.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 748
164 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-7: Facilities Capital Improvement Plan
Facility Name Short Mid Long Subtotal Soft Cost TOTAL
Adult Community
Center $160,000 $1,250,000 $1,410,000 $493,500 $1,903,500 Kiwanis Building $10,000,000 $3,500,000 $13,500,000
Laureola Park
Building $10,000,000 $3,500,000 $13,500,000
Library Community
Rooms $50,000 $50,000 $17,500 $67,500
Youth Center $7,500 $45,000 $1,200,000 $1,252,500 $438,375 $1,690,875 TOTAL $217,500 $20,045,000 $2,450,000 $22,712,500 $7,949,375 $30,661,875 *Disclaimer: Costs are rounded to nearest hundredth for planning purposes.

Table 4-8: Total Project Capital Improvement Plan
Phase Subtotal Soft Costs
Subtotal Total
Short Term Improvements $5,150,000 $1,800,000 $6,950,000 Mid Term Improvements $50,000,000 $17,400,000 $67,400,000 Long Term Improvements $11,400,000 $4,000,000 $15,400,000 TOTAL CIP COST $89,750,000
*Disclaimer: Costs are rounded to nearest hundredth for planning purposes.

Aquatic and Community Center
Through the Parks Master Plan planning process, a need for an aquatic/community center was identified. Aquatic centers recently opened or under construction in the Bay Area have ranged in cost between $30 million and $50 million, however, a facility tailored to San Carlos is expected to range between $5 to $7 million due to size and functionality. Funding for aquatic centers tends to be a combination of user fees (individuals who go to swim sessions or pay for lessons; club partners who rent pool time) backfilled with general fund money to cover the operating deficit. In addition, there may be small amounts of sponsorships and/or donations revenue. On the capital side, aquatic centers have been funded through a combination of general funds, general obligation bonds, tax measures, and revenue bonds.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 749
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 165

SOURCES OF FUNDING
Types of Funding Sources
Funding for park operations, maintenance,
and improvements typically comes from a mix
of local, regional, state, and federal sources
(see Table 4-9). Local funding is generally
the most accessible but often competes
with other City priorities such as public safety
and infrastructure maintenance. Increasing
local funding for parks and recreation may
involve raising user fees, dedicating a portion
of property tax revenues, or proposing new
taxes. These funds can support both one-time
capital projects and ongoing operations, and
they may also be used to leverage outside
funding or support debt repayment.

Federal funding is more limited and typically
awarded based on strict eligibility criteria. In
many cases, federal dollars are administered
through state or regional agencies. State and
regional funding programs vary in scale but
are generally best suited for one-time capital
investments, such as new facilities or major
system upgrades.

A comprehensive list of regional, state, and
federal funding sources, along with selected
private sponsors and grant-makers, is provided
in Appendix I.

Table 4-9: Types of funding for parks

FUNDING SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR SAN CARLOS

LOCAL FUNDING REGIONAL/STATE FUNDING PRIVATE/NONPROFIT FUNDING General Fund Allocations California State Parks Grants Private Donations Parks & Recreation Revenue National Park Service Sponsorship Programs Development Impact Fees Federal Highway Administration Private Charities and Foundations Development Agreements/
Community Benefits
Private Non-Profit Hospital
Funding
Private Developer Funding/
Reimbursement Agreements Public Land Trusts
Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District
Special Taxes
General Obligation and Revenue
Bonds
Community Facilities District
Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFD)
Source: BAE, 2025
Note: Federal sources typically are distributed through the State of California.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 750
166 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION
General Fund
The General Fund is the City of San Carlos’
primary operating fund and provides the
greatest flexibility for funding priorities, as
determined by the City Council. Major
revenue sources include property taxes, sales
and use taxes, and transient occupancy
taxes. Capital projects are funded on a payas-you-go basis using available reserves and dedicated revenues, without reliance
on debt. Depending on City priorities and
available resources, General Fund allocations
may support implementation of Parks Master
Plan projects.

Parks and Recreation Revenue
The City partially funds parks and recreation
programs through service charges, program
registration fees, and facility rental fees,
which are reviewed annually. These revenues
recover approximately 25 percent of
operating and maintenance costs, consistent
with common municipal practice. As new
facilities and programs are implemented, the
City may periodically adjust fees or introduce
new charges based on comparisons with
peer communities. Fee revenue helps offset
costs while maintaining broad community
access.

Development Impact Fees
San Carlos collects park dedication inlieu fees and park facility development impact fees to fund park and recreation
capital improvements associated with new
residential development. These fees are
legally required to demonstrate a nexus
between development impacts and facility
needs and may only be used for eligible
capital improvements. Funds are expended in
accordance with the City’s adopted capital
improvement program, and developers
may receive fee credits or reimbursement
for qualifying area-wide improvements.

Following adoption of the Parks Master Plan,
fee programs should be updated to reflect
revised capital needs and may be expanded
to include commercial development.

Development Agreements
and Community Benefits
Development agreements allow the City
to secure public benefits, such as park
improvements or funding, in exchange for
development incentives. These agreements
are typically used for large or complex
projects and are guided by adopted plans
including the General Plan and Specific
Plans. Parks and recreation improvements
can be identified as priority community
benefits within these negotiations. The scope
of benefits is based on financial feasibility and
City objectives.

Private Developer Funding and
Reimbursement Agreements
Some park improvements may be constructed
and funded directly by developers when tied to
private development activity. Improvements
that provide area-wide benefits may be
eligible for partial reimbursement or impact
fee credits through a formal agreement
with the City. Infrastructure required solely
to mitigate project impacts is not eligible for
reimbursement. Completion of developerfunded improvements may be linked to permit issuance or occupancy approvals.

Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District
A Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District (LLAD) is a special district used to
fund the installation and maintenance of
landscaping, lighting, and related public
amenities. Assessments are based on a benefit

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 751
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 167
formula rather than property value and require
voter approval to establish or increase. LLAD
revenues may also support bond financing
for certain park and community facilities.

Prior to formation, the City must evaluate the
financial capacity of affected properties.

Special Taxes
The City may consider a voter-approved
special tax to fund park capital improvements
and ongoing maintenance. Potential tax
structures include sales taxes or parcelbased taxes applied to residential and/or commercial properties. City-initiated special
taxes require two-thirds voter approval, while
voter-initiated measures may pass with a
simple majority. Accountability provisions and
exemptions are commonly included.

General Obligation and Revenue Bonds
General obligation bonds are voter-approved
bonds repaid through property assessments
and may only fund capital improvements.

Revenue bonds may be used for revenuegenerating facilities, with repayment tied to facility income. If revenues are insufficient,
other City funding sources may be required to
support bond repayment. Both tools require
careful evaluation of long-term financial
impacts.

Community Facilities Districts
Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) allow
the City to levy special taxes to fund public
improvements or services. CFDs may issue
bonds or operate on a pay-as-you-go
basis and offer flexibility in how taxes are
structured. Formation requires approval by
voters or property owners, depending on
residency levels. The financial feasibility of
additional taxes on new development is a
key consideration.

Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs) use tax increment financing to fund
infrastructure of community-wide significance,
including parks. EIFDs may combine multiple
revenue sources and can be formed without
voter approval, though issuing debt requires
a 55 percent vote. Funds may not be used
for operations or maintenance. Revenue
potential depends on available tax increment
and competing City priorities.

Grants
State and federal grant programs provide
competitive and non-competitive funding for
park and recreation improvements. California
bond measures, including Propositions 4 and
68, support projects related to parks, climate
resilience, and outdoor access. Grant
funding is often targeted toward underserved
areas, rehabilitation of existing facilities, and
revenue-enhancing improvements. Grants
are typically time-limited and project-specific.

Sponsorships and Philanthropy
The Parks and Recreation Foundation of
San Carlos supports park improvements
and programs through private fundraising
and partnerships. Established in 2007, the
Foundation supplements public funding
during periods of limited municipal resources.

Philanthropic contributions may support
facilities, programs, or special initiatives.

This funding source is most effective as a
complement to public investment.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 752
168 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

COST RECOVERY
Cost recovery is a key implementation tool
for advancing the Parks Master Plan’s service,
equity, and financial sustainability goals. While
the City’s parks and recreation programs
provide substantial public benefit and are
not intended to be fully self-supporting, a
clear cost recovery framework helps ensure
that limited public resources are allocated
intentionally, transparently, and equitably. As
established in this Master Plan, cost recovery
is a policy-driven implementation strategy—
not simply a budget exercise—intended to
support high-quality services over time.

San Carlos currently recovers a portion
of its parks and recreation operating and
maintenance costs through service charges,
program registration fees, and facility rental
fees. These mechanisms, which are detailed
in Appendix G, are reviewed and updated
annually. Collectively, they account for
nearly 25% of total parks and recreation
operating and maintenance costs, placing
the City at the lower end of the typical cost
recovery range of 20% to 50%. This level is
consistent with common practice, given the
broad community benefits provided by parks
and recreation programs and the emphasis
on widespread access and participation.

As new park projects move forward under
the Parks Master Plan and the forthcoming
Downtown Specific Plan, opportunities may
emerge to adjust fees for existing facilities
and introduce charges for new or expanded
amenities—such as Frank D. Harrington Park,
the proposed Wheeler Plaza, and expanded
sports, wellness, and recreation programming.

Any fee adjustments should be evaluated
periodically through comparisons with fees
and rental rates charged by comparable
cities.

4.4 PARKS AND

RECREATION REVENUE

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

COST RECOVERY SNAPSHOT
• Direct Cost Recovery (program
revenues compared to direct
operating costs): 30%
• Full Cost Recovery (including
indirect administrative,
maintenance, and citywide
overhead): 25%
These results place the
Department within the
typical national range
for parks and recreation
services (20–50%), though
at the lower end once
full costs are considered.

This outcome reflects the
City’s long-standing policy
emphasis on community
access, affordability, and
broad public benefit.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 753
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 169
Table 4-10: Cost recovery by program type

COST RECOVERY

PROGRAM TYPE COMMUNITY

BENEFIT
COST

RECOVERY
LEVEL
Youth
Development High Lower
Special Community
Needs High Lower
Adult Services Moderate Moderate
Athletics
Individual /
Mixed Higher
Personal & Family
Development
Mixed Moderate
Program-Level Observations
(High-Level)
Cost recovery varies by program type,
reflecting differences in community benefit,
market demand, and service objectives:
• Programs closer to market-based
services (e.g., athletics and adultoriented programs) tend to achieve higher cost recovery
• Programs that deliver broad social
and community benefits (e.g.,
youth development, senior services,
community events) rely more heavily on
subsidy.
• Several programs fall below typical
cost recovery benchmarks, indicating
potential opportunities for policy
clarification, fee adjustments, or
alternative funding strategies.

Figure 4-1: Cost recovery pyramid

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 754
170 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION

COST RECOVERY POLICY

FRAMEWORK
The Master Plan recommends that San Carlos
formalize a tiered cost recovery policy based
on the degree of public versus individual
benefit, consistent with national best practices
and guidance from the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA).

Key Policy Considerations for
Implementation
Level of Benefit
• Services providing primarily individual
benefit should target higher cost
recovery.
• Services with strong community-wide
benefit may appropriately receive
greater subsidy.

Equity and Access
• Fee structures should avoid creating
barriers to participation.
• Clear and consistent policies for
scholarships, fee waivers, and discounts
are essential to support inclusion.

Market Awareness
• Fees should be reviewed regularly in
relation to comparable communities
and market demand.
• High-demand programs may support
higher cost recovery, while lowerdemand programs may warrant strategic subsidy to encourage
participation.

Alternate Funding Sources
• Grants, sponsorships, donations, and
partnerships should be leveraged to
reduce reliance on user fees while
expanding service levels.

To support the Master Plan’s longterm success, the City should:
• Adopt a formal Parks and Recreation
Cost Recovery Policy aligned with
community benefit objectives.
• Establish target cost recovery ranges by
program category, with flexibility for subprogram differentiation (e.g., adult vs. youth athletics).
• Conduct regular fee and cost recovery
reviews as part of the annual budget
process.
• Use cost recovery performance as one
of several decision-making tools—not
the sole determinant—when adjusting
programs or fees.

San Carlos’ parks and recreation programs are
intentionally subsidized to support community
well-being, access, and quality of life. The
Master Plan’s cost recovery approach ensures
that subsidies are purposeful, equitable, and
financially responsible, while maintaining
flexibility to respond to changing community
needs.

Concert in the Park

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 755
SAN CARLOS PARKS MASTER PLAN 171 Zumba class members at the Adult Community Center

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 756
End of Parks Master Plan document.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 757
UPDATED DATE: April 16, 2026
Revised Proposed Parks Master Plan Amendments
This document presents proposed amendments to the San Carlos Parks Master Plan (2026).

Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Parks Master Plan; text with a strikethrough has been deleted from the Parks Master Plan. Text that is highlighted is text that has been revised following the public review draft of the Parks Master Plan. This document focuses on non-formatting changes to the Master Plan and does not include changes to the document’s format, background information, or narrative language.

Front Matter
Land Acknowledgement
The City of San Carlos acknowledges that our lands are located on the ancestral homeland of the Ohlone peoples, and that, as the original stewards of this land, the Ohlone understood the interconnectedness of all things and maintained harmony with nature for millennia. We honor their enduring connection to this place and recognize their ongoing presence and contributions.

Chapter 2: Our Future
Section 2.2. System-wide Needs and Opportunities
Table 3-2: Amenity service level gaps guidelines
Level of Service
Additional amenities needed to
meet guideline
Amenity
2024 NRPA
Guideline
Peer
Average Existing
Recommend
Guideline
for Current
Population
(2025)
30,490
for Projected
Population (2045)
46,450
Diamond
Fields
1/3,007 1/7,722 1/4,356 1/5,500 +1 +1
Soccer Fields 1/3,333 1/18,385 1/3,811 1/5,100 +1 +1
Multi-Use
Fields
1/7,674 1/18,325 1/6,098 1/6,800 +1 +1

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 758
Basketball
Courts
1/7,501 1/15,603 1/5,082 1/6,000 0 +1
Tennis Courts 1/5,815 1/5,034 1/5,082 1/4,800 0 +1
Pickleball
Courts
1/7,737 1/18,376 1/15,245 1/6,000 +1 +2 +3
Bocce Courts N/A 1/11,454 1/10,163 1/11,000 0 0
Play Areas 1/3,105 1/1,455 1/3,811 1/3,500 +1 +3
Water Play N/A 1/17,110 1/15,245 1/17,000 0 0
Dog Parks 1/27,508 1/17,611 1/15,245 1/15,000 0 +1
Chapter 3: Vision, Goals, and Recommendations
Section 3.2. Design Principles and Considerations
Placemaking
• Consider naming parks, trails, and new facilities to reflect and honor the heritage of local Indigenous communities, including the Ohlone peoples. Naming should be developed in coordination with Native representatives to ensure cultural accuracy, respect, and meaningful recognition.
• Incorporate interpretive and educational elements such as signage, public art, and storytelling features that celebrate Indigenous history, cultural practices, and relationships to the land. These elements should be developed, where feasible, in collaboration with Native representatives to ensure authenticity and respect. • Prioritize the use of California native and culturally significant Indigenous plant species in landscape designs, including traditional edible, medicinal, and utilitarian plants historically used by Indigenous communities. Planting strategies should reflect local ecosystems and provide opportunities for education within park spaces.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 759
Section 3.4. Park Improvements
Burton Park Proposed Improvements (page 93)
#12. Add snack shack – Short Term
Crestview Park Proposed Improvements (page 102)
City to consult with the San Mateo County Astronomical Society prior to the selection of lighting for compatibility with star gazing events.

Chapter 4: Implementation
Section 4.1. Implementation Plan
Table 4-3. Project priority matrix
Recreation Amenities Goal Alignment Priority Term Cost Estimate Outdoor Pickleball Courts Recreation Medium High Mid $$

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 760

If you require translation of this notice, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-802-4222

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the San Carlos City Council will hold a Public Hearing at its regular meeting on Monday, June 8, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, for the purpose of hearing and considering all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Adopt the Parks Master Plan and Adopt Amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan.

Project Description: The Parks Master Plan is designed to guide decision-making for San Carlos Parks and Recreation facilities and programs over the next 20 years. It includes the City’s vision, goals and recommendations for improvements. The amendment to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan has been prepared for consistency with the updated Parks Master Plan and in compliance with State Senate Bill 1425 and AB 1889 requiring cities to review and update open space plans. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project. The public review and comment period on the Draft IS/MND was available from April 15, 2026 through May 15, 2026. The Parks Master Plan, Amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan and the IS/MND are available on the City’s website: sancarlosparksmp.com.

The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its May 18, 2026 meeting, voted 5-0 to adopt the Resolutions recommending the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt the amendments to the Parks and Recreation Element and the Environmental Management Element of the General Plan.

Agenda: The agenda and relevant materials for this item will be available online at www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda; at the City Clerk’s Department in City Hall – 600 Elm Street; and at the San Carlos Library – 610 Elm Street, beginning Thursday, June 4, 2026.

Ways to Observe the Meeting: You may observe the meeting and address the City Council in–person in City Hall’s Council Chambers 600 Elm Street and may also have an option to remotely address the City Council via Zoom. Details and instructions will be available on the meeting agenda.

Questions and Comments: Questions regarding the project may be directed to Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner at [email protected] or mailed to the San Carlos Planning Division at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070. Comments may be sent to the City Council via email at [email protected]; mailed to City Hall – 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070; or made in person at the public hearing.

All persons interested in the above are hereby invited to attend this public hearing and be heard. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public meeting and hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Published on May 28, 2026

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 761
“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.

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 762
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner
May 18, 2026

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” System Planning is currently preparing a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) along all of State Route (SR 82) within San Mateo County, the SR 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 (GBI) concurrently being conducted with all local cities along SR 82 within San Mateo County. Lastly, more specific to the Parks Master Plan location and consistent with GBI, SamTrans is also leading the Central El Camino Real (ECR) Multimodal Plan, a planning project being coordinated with the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City. The Central ECR Plan is aimed at providing multimodal transportation enhancements along this 8.5-mile portion of SR 82.

System Planning notes that some City parks identified for improvement in the Master Plan are in walking proximity to SR 82. As the IS/MND states, “the Plan intends to improve connectivity and provide opportunities for non-vehicular transportation through improvements to trail, cycling, and walking infrastructure.” These Master Plan goals are seemingly aligned with those of the SR 82 North CMCP, GBI, and Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan. System Planning recommends that the City coordinate with Caltrans and SamTrans to ensure the Parks Master Plan is consistent with these ongoing planning efforts.

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

Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

10.a
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 763

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Northeast Area Specific Plan; Adopting a Resolution Amending the San Carlos General Plan Land Use Map, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element; Introducing an Ordinance Amending the San Carlos Zoning Map and Municipal Code Title 18 – Zoning, Repealing Chapter 18.14A, Removing References to Chapter 18.14A within Chapter 18.07 and Chapter 18.30, Adding Chapter 18.14.2, and Amending Chapter 18.19; and Introducing an Ordinance Adopting the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Northeast Area Specific Plan;

2. Adopt a Resolution amending the San Carlos General Plan Land Use Map, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element;

3. Introduce an Ordinance amending the San Carlos Zoning Map, and the San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning, repealing Chapter 18.14A, removing references to Chapter 18.14A within Chapter 18.07 and Chapter 18.30, enacting Chapter 18.14.2, and amending Chapter 18.19; and

4. Introduce an Ordinance adopting the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications, and no additional funding is needed. Funding to prepare this project was previously appropriated by the City Council for Project C2211 Northeast Area Specific Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the related actions as described below. This report will summarize the Northeast Area Specific Plan, EIR, the related General Plan and Zoning amendments, as well as revisions since

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 764
the former Public Draft was last presented to the City Council.

The City Council is required to hold a public hearing to consider amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 18.34.060 and

18.35.060. Adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan necessitates the following interrelated City Council actions:
• Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates the environmental impact of the Northeast Area Specific Plan buildout; • Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map to amend land use designations throughout the Northeast area, as well as text amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element; • Amendments to the Zoning Map to rezone parcels throughout the Northeast rea and to Title 18 Zoning of the Municipal Code to:
o Repeal Chapter 18.14A Northeast Area Overlay District o Remove references to Chapter 18.14A within Chapter 18.07 Industrial Districts and Chapter 18.30 Use Permits
o Establish Chapter 18.14.2 Northeast Area Specific Plan o Amend Chapter 18.19 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots On May 18, 2026, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopted four resolutions (Attachment 5) recommending the City Council approve the actions above.

PROJECT HISTORY:

The Northeast Area is defined by the area north of Holly Street, to the City limits at Belmont Creek, and between U.S. Highway 101 and Old County Road, as shown in Figure 1 below. This 145- acre area consists primarily of industrial uses developed in the 1950s.

Figure 1. Northeast Area Specific Plan Boundary Map
Since its annexation in 1997, not much redevelopment has occurred in the Northeast Area. Over

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 765
the last several years, however, the east side of San Carlos, including the Northeast Area, has received increased development interest, particularly from the life sciences and biotechnology sectors. Recognizing that this area might experience change in the coming years, the City Council directed staff, as part of the 2022 Strategic Plan, to create a Specific Plan to carefully plan for, manage, and direct development in the Northeast Area. The City Council further directed staff to evaluate allowing housing in the Northeast Area, which is currently prohibited by the City’s General Plan. The City Council established the following strategic goal in 2022, which has been carried forward into each subsequent year, including the current 2026 Strategic Plan:

The City of San Carlos will work with residents, property owners, stakeholders, business owners, committees, commissions, the Chamber of Commerce, and all other interested members of the community to adopt a plan in response to continued development interest in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors, and develop policies and strategies that include housing as part of this new development.

The Northeast Area Specific Plan project was initiated in November 2022 following selection of a consultant team led by Perkins&Will who also prepared the City’s East Side Innovation District Vision Plan. Since the project’s initiation in 2022, a series of milestones resulted in key decision points in the development of the Northeast Area Specific Plan as summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Northeast Area Specific Plan Project Milestones Timeframe Milestone
February 2023 Community engagement efforts commenced and concluded in January 2025, which included online surveys, focus group meetings, pop-up events, and community workshops.

February 12, 2024 City Council endorsed a preferred land use scenario, which sets forth land uses (including housing), and development projections based on maximum building height, residential density, and floor area.

April 2025 First Public Draft of the Northeast Area Specific Plan was published online for public review.

May 27, 2025 City Council study session to receive input on the first Public Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan.

July 2025 Additional stakeholder meetings were conducted to further evaluate stakeholder comments received in previous PTC and City Council study sessions.

September 8, 2025 City Council study session to further evaluate and confirm City Council direction on the First Public Draft, as discussed further below.

March 2, 2026 to
April 16, 2026
Draft EIR was published online and available for public review for 45 days, which evaluates and discloses the environmental impact of the Northeast Area Specific Plan buildout.

April 2026 Final Public Draft of the Northeast Area Specific Plan was published online, which includes revisions based on community, PTC, and City Council input, as well as necessary revisions based on Draft EIR.

May 7, 2026 Final EIR was published online, which responds to all public comments received on the Draft EIR and incorporates necessary text revisions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 766
May 18, 2026 PTC recommended adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and certification of the EIR.

City Council Direction from September 8, 2025 Study Session The previous Public Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan was first presented to the City Council on May 27, 2025 as a study session where the Council provided input on key standards including public open space; nonconforming uses; community benefits and bonus heights program; and the maximum density and building height for the proposed MU-NE-90 block. Following this initial study session, the project team held follow-up focus group meetings with key stakeholders and subsequently conducted a second study session at the September 8, 2025 City Council meeting to receive direction on these key standards and present tradeoffs and benefits of potential revisions. See Table 2 below for a summary of standards discussed at this study session and the corresponding direction from the City Council. Refer to Attachment 6 for Meeting Minutes from the September 8, 2025 City Council meeting.

Table 2. City Council Direction from September 8, 2025 Study Session Standards City Council Direction
Public Open Space Maintain the proposed open space ratios and add a value statement emphasizing the benefits of public open space.

Nonconforming Uses Provide flexibility for future nonconforming uses in the Northeast Area with respect to vacancy and the permit
process to reestablish nonconforming uses.

Community Benefits and Bonus
Height
Maintain the fee option for community benefits and
incorporate a fee escalator. Increase the maximum bonus height to 155 feet uniformly in the district.

Maximum Density and Building
Height for MU-NE-90 zone
Maintain the proposed maximum density (90 dwelling units per acre) and building height (90 feet) for the MU-NE-90 zone.

Since the September 8, 2025 study session, the project team has finalized the Final Public Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan (Attachment 4, Exhibit A) consistent with this direction.

ANALYSIS:

The purpose of this public hearing is to request that the City Council consider the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the related amendments and actions. This section of the report will provide an overview of the Northeast Area Specific Plan and a summary of the related actions including the amendments to the General Plan, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and certification of the EIR.

Overview of the Northeast Area Specific Plan
The Final Public Draft of the Northeast Area Specific Plan was published on the project webpage, www.sancarlosnortheastplan.com, in April 2026 and represents a culmination of robust civic engagement and thoughtful urban planning. The Northeast Area Specific Plan is intended to be a comprehensive framework and policy document that establishes a long-term vision and guides

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 767
growth in the Northeast Area over a 20-year period. This long-term vision is guided by seven guiding principles that reflect the aspirations for the Northeast Area informed by input from the community, the PTC, and the City Council:

1. Celebrate the industrial legacy

2. Calibrate the right mix of uses

3. Improve access for all modes of transportation

4. Develop district parking strategies

5. Champion district resiliency

6. Address flooding and environmental issues

7. Promote equity and access in public spaces
The Northeast Area Specific Plan incorporates these guiding principles into an overall vision for a new mixed-use district that balances traditional industry, innovation, environmental resiliency, and inclusive community life. The overall framework of land uses, mobility improvements, and environmental resiliency standards aim to accomplish this overall vision, as shown in Figure 2 below. This overall framework is structured into seven comprehensive chapters containing policies and development standards for guiding development in the Northeast Area:

1. Introduction

2. The Vision

3. Existing Conditions

4. Land Use and Urban Form

5. Mobility and Parking

6. Environmental Resilience

7. Implementation
Figure 2. Northeast Area Specific Plan Vision Diagram
The anticipated growth projected through the Northeast Area Specific Plan is 1,890 housing units (where none exist currently) and approximately 4.5 million square feet of net new research and development, office, retail, and industrial uses. The following section provides a brief description of key chapters with highlights and notable policies and standards that facilitate this growth.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 768
Chapter 4 – Land Use and Urban Form
The Northeast Area Specific Plan consists of five zoning designations listed below and as shown above in Figure 2.

1. Production and Innovation (P-I)

2. Mixed-Use Northeast – 90 dwelling units per acre (MU-NE-90)

3. Mixed-Use Northeast – 75 dwelling units per acre (MU-NE-75)

4. Industrial Professional (existing PG&E site)

5. Planned Developments (previously approved PD-18, PD-21, and PD-28) To advance the overall vision and preferred land use scenario, this chapter enacts selective increases to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and building height from what the existing zoning designations permit, as well as allowing residential uses which are summarized in Table 3 below.

No changes in development standards to the PG&E site and Planned Developments are proposed.

Table 3. Summary of Floor Area, Height, and Density Standards by Zoning Designation Zoning Districts
Production &
Innovation
Mixed-Use:
90 DUs/Ac
Mixed-Use:
75 DUs/Ac
Industrial
Professional
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio

1.0 to 2.0 - - 1.5
Maximum Base
Height
75 to 100 ft. 90 ft. 75 ft. (35 ft.
along rear)
100 ft.

Maximum
Residential Density
- 90 du/ac 75 du/ac -
For projects that include multifamily housing, these standards, particularly maximum density, can be increased through State Density Bonus Law, which affords housing projects increased density, concessions, and waivers in exchange for provision of affordable housing. In addition to the development standards above, this chapter contains other enhanced standards unique to the Northeast Area. These include, but are not limited to:
• Building Height Stepdowns: Given the Northeast Area’s proximity to the single-family Greater East San Carlos (GESC) neighborhood, new development in the MU-NE-75 zone must stepdown building heights to 35 feet along rear setbacks to serve as a transition to adjacent lower-scaled buildings.
• Bonus FAR and Building Height: The Production and Innovation zone is eligible for additional bonus height (up to 155 feet) and floor area in exchange for community benefits. • Ground Floor Active Uses: To encourage a range of active commercial uses and to support ground floor activation, certain corridors are allowed to program ground floor active uses. Moreover, certain corners are required to provide retail or similar active uses serving as key nodes in the Northeast Area. Lastly, new development along Quarry Road must have Industrial, Artisan, Manufacturing Uses (IAM) on the ground floor with publicfacing production uses to further support ground floor activation.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 769
• Public Open Space: The Northeast Area is completely urbanized and currently lacks open space. Recognizing that new public open spaces are essential for enhancing quality of life and environmental resilience, lots between 15,000 square feet to one acre must devote at least 10 percent of the lot to publicly accessible open space; and lots greater than one acre must devote at least 15 percent of the lot to publicly accessible open space.

In addition, the MU-NE-90 block is identified as a potential site of a future, public park that would be designed and sited in a future redevelopment in collaboration with a future applicant.

Chapter 5 – Mobility and Parking
To support various modes of transportation as well as freight and vehicle movement of existing and future businesses, this chapter provides conceptual roadway improvements, street design guidance, and standards for pedestrian and bicycle improvements throughout the Northeast Area.

The Northeast Area Specific Plan anticipates that these improvements would be implemented over time as developments are constructed and would be further refined in a future Streetscape Master Plan for the east side. Key mobility improvements include:
• New Street: A new north-south street segment connecting Quarry Road to Bragato Road to improve circulation access in the Northeast Area and to act as service street for industrial uses.
• Paseos: Three publicly accessible paseos with shared pedestrian and bicycle paths connecting Bragato Road to Industrial Road; the New Street to Belmont Creek; and Taylor Way to the GESC neighborhood.
• Industrial Road: Lane reduction to one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane to accommodate active mobility improvements and a widened 8-foot pedestrian through zone on each side, and 5-foot protected bicycle lanes in each direction. • Mobility Hubs: One District Mobility Hub and three Small Mobility Hubs are identified throughout the Northeast Area consisting of bicycle parking, pick-up/drop-off zones, and wayfinding to support multiple transportation options.

In addition to physical mobility improvements, this chapter establishes increased transportation demand management (TDM) requirements that apply to new development in the Northeast Area.

The TDM requirements also expand on and increase requirements found in the City’s current TDM Ordinance, which is in the process of being updated. Minimum trip reduction targets vary based on the land use and project size and contain exemptions for certain projects, such as 100 percent affordable housing projects. The minimum trip reduction targets range from 25 to 35 points for residential projects, and 30 to 35 points for non-residential projects. The TDM program also includes an updated menu of TDM strategies that identify which measures are required for certain project types and how many points are assigned to each measure.

This chapter also implements parking maximums recognizing that no minimum parking is required under Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 and that creating excess parking can increase traffic congestion and work against TDM goals. All new development in the Northeast Area will be subject to parking maximums, either Tier 1, which is the soft parking maximum, or Tier 2, which is the firm parking maximum as shown in Table 4 below. Enacting soft and firm maximums provide flexibility for future development to create more parking, if desired, in exchange for publicly accessible parking,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 770
additional trip-reduction strategies, or other benefits that support multimodal travel.

Table 4. Parking Maximum Ratios
Land Use Maximum Parking
Limit (Tier 1, Soft)
Maximum Parking
Limit (Tier 2, Firm)
Unit of Measurement
Multifamily
Residential

0.6 Spaces 0.7 Spaces Per Bedroom
Office 1.5 Spaces 2.2 Spaces Per 1,000 square feet
Research and
Development

1.0 Spaces 1.6 Spaces Per 1,000 square feet
Light Industrial 0.4 Spaces 0.6 Spaces Per 1,000 square feet Retail and Dining 2.0 Spaces 2.5 Spaces Per 1,000 square feet Other NonResidential Uses2.0 Spaces 2.5 Spaces Per 1,000 square feet Chapter 6 – Environmental Resilience
Given the Northeast Area’s vulnerability to flood events, this chapter identifies key sewer and stormwater updates and a coordinate resilience framework that would be implemented over time as developments are constructed. This chapter also establishes two resilience zones in the Northeast Area’s most vulnerable areas: Sea Level Rise Priority Zone and Creek Front Zone.

Key measures in these zones include:
• Sea Level Rise Priority Zone: Applicable to properties within the FEMA 100-year flood plain, new developments must prepare context-specific strategies for new development given their heightened vulnerability to flooding due to extreme weather events and sea level rise. Key measures include a minimum 25-foot building setback from the edge of an existing drainage channel to create a buffer to support stormwater management and providing engineered detention basins as part of open space. • Creek Front Zone: Applicable to properties adjacent to Belmont Creek, which is prone to flooding and related property damage, new developments must include a minimum 35- foot setback from the existing top of bank to support stormwater detention, and provide native riparian vegetation at the initial 25 feet from the top of bank to filter pollutants and maintain water quality.

Chapter 7 – Implementation
Because the Northeast Area Specific Plan’s overall vision will be implemented incrementally through redevelopment, this chapter outlines potential funding sources the City can seek despite uncertain timing. These funding sources include developer contributions, impact fees, a potential Community Facilities District (CFD), and state or federal grant programs.

An important developer contribution identified in the Northeast Area Specific Plan is the potential for community benefit contributions. As mentioned previously, commercial developments in the Production and Innovation zone are eligible for bonus FAR and/or bonus height in exchange for community benefits. The proposed community benefits approach allows developers to pay a community benefits fee, negotiate an agreement to provide the community benefit, or a

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 771
combination of both. This approach would provide developers with a higher degree of certainty through a fee option, while ensuring the City will receive investment in critical infrastructure and community amenities to support the growth contemplated in the Northeast Area.

As an implementation action after adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan, the community benefits fee will be defined and include an escalator to account for inflation costs. This chapter also includes a community benefits menu outlining the City’s goals and objectives for tangible, community serving amenities that could be delivered by future development in the Northeast Area.

The menu of community benefits includes public park space, affordable commercial space, multimodal street improvements, and community facilities.

Key Revisions Since Previous Public Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan The first Public Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan was published online in April 2025 and was presented to the City Council at study sessions on May 27, 2025 and September 8, 2025. Based on input received at these study sessions, key revisions include:
• New Guiding Principle: To emphasize the value of public open spaces, a new Guiding Principle (Promote Equity and Access in Public Spaces) has been added to promote a network of inclusive and accessible open spaces that enhance quality of life in the Northeast Area.
• Land Use Regulations Table: Complete tables listing land uses that are either permitted, prohibited, or are subject to a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Use Permit have been added for each of the mixed-use and nonresidential zoning districts. Refer to Sections 4.5 and 4.6 in Attachment 4, Exhibit A. These tables also list uses allowable in the Ground Floor Active Use Corridors, Required Retail Corners, and IAM frontages. Generally, allowable land uses were made more permissible to continue allowance of industrial uses in the Northeast Area, with the exception of the Mixed-Use Districts where housing will be permitted and ground floor active commercial uses will be allowed. To compare land uses allowed in the Northeast Area versus other, similar zoning districts elsewhere in the City, refer to Attachment 7 and Attachment 8.
• Nonconforming Uses and Structures: The Northeast Area Specific Plan will refer to Municipal Code Chapter 18.19 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots. Based on stakeholder and City Council input, amendments to Chapter 18.19 are also proposed to provide greater flexibility for future nonconforming or grandfathered uses given the land uses changes in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, including extending the time frame for abandoned uses from 6 months to 12 months and streamlining the process to reestablish non-conforming uses beyond this timeframe. This is described further in the Zoning Text Amendments section of this report.
• Objective Design Standards: Adopted code language from the Objective Design Standards for Mixed-Use Developments project have been incorporated into Chapter 4 (Land Use and Urban Form) with focused refinements to fit the Northeast Area’s context.

Refer to Section 4.13 in Attachment 4, Exhibit A.
• Maximum Bonus Height for Commercial Uses: Based on the City Council’s direction, the maximum bonus height is uniformly 155 feet in the Northeast Area for properties zoned Production and Innovation. Refer to Section 4.9 in Attachment 4, Exhibit A.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 772
General Plan Amendments
To ensure consistency between the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan, corresponding amendments to the General Plan are proposed. These amendments include updates to the General Plan Land Use Map and text amendments to certain General Plan Elements. In considering a determination for the amendments to the General Plan, Chapter 18.34 of the Municipal Code requires the City Council to make specific findings, which are included in Attachment 2.

General Plan Land Use Map Amendment
Consistent with the preferred land use scenario endorsed by the PTC and the City Council, amendments to the General Plan Land Use designations for the mixed-use parcels are proposed as follows:
• Parcels bound by Glenn Way, Taylor Way, Old County Road, and Bragato Road: from Planned Industrial to Mixed Use, 68-90 du/ac
• Parcels bound by Industrial Road, Taylor Way, Old County Road, and the rear parcel lines of properties along Northwood Drive and Fairfield Drive: from Planned Industrial to Mixed Use 57-75 du/ac
Figure 3 below and Attachment 2, Exhibit A provide a full representation of the proposed Land Use designations. The General Plan Land Use designations for all other sites in the Northeast Area (Planned Industrial), would remain unchanged. All designations also align with the Northeast Area Specific Plan’s Land Use Designations Map (Attachment 4, Exhibit A, Section 4.1).

Figure 3. General Plan Land Use Map Amendment

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 773
General Plan Text Amendments
Text amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element are proposed. The primary purpose of these amendments is to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Northeast Area Specific Plan’s overall vision and goals. This includes redefining the area identified as the Harbor Industrial Area into the Northeast Area in the body of the text and Figure 3-3 Major Developed Areas in San Carlos. Given the Land Use Map amendments, corresponding land use descriptions for the proposed Mixed Use, 68-90 du/ac and Mixed Use 57-75 du/ac are also incorporated into the text amendments.

One notable amendment pertains to Land Use Element Policy LU-6.2, which currently prohibits conversion of industrial properties in the east side into nonindustrial or noncommercial uses. The purpose of the amendment to Policy LU-6.2 is to allow development of housing as delineated in the Northeast Area Specific Plan. Lastly, mobility and environmental resilience policies found in the Northeast Area Specific Plan would be carried forward into the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element. For a full list of amendments shown redlined, refer to Attachment 2, Exhibit B.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments
To ensure consistency between the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, corresponding amendments to the Title 18 Zoning and the City’s Zoning Map are proposed. These amendments would align zoning regulations and designations with the General Plan amendments described above and development standards of the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

Zoning Text Amendments
Prior to preparing the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Chapter 18.14A Northeast Area Overlay District was enacted as an interim step to manage redevelopment in the Northeast Area and ensure consistency with foreseeable land uses contemplated in the Northeast Area Specific Plan prior to its adoption. Concurrent with adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Chapter

18.14A would be repealed. Corresponding edits would be made throughout the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Chapters 18.07 Industrial Districts and Chapter 18.30 Use Permits, to remove references to Chapter 18.14A as summarized in Attachment 3.

To incorporate the Northeast Area Specific Plan into the Zoning Ordinance, creation of a new Chapter within Title 18 is proposed: Chapter 18.14.2 Northeast Area Specific Plan (Attachment 3, Exhibit B). This added Chapter immediately follows Chapter 18.14.1 Downtown Specific Plan and would serve as a reference point to the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

Lastly, as mentioned previously, an amendment to Chapter 18.19 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots is also proposed (Attachment 3, Exhibit C). Based on community input and policy direction from the September 8, 2025 City Council study session, the amendment provides more permissive standards, specifically for properties in the Northeast Area in recognition of the proposed land use changes. One notable amendment increases the abandonment period to 12 months where properties elsewhere in the City are subject to six months. For property owners with nonconforming land uses in the Northeast Area, extending this period to 12 months affords additional time to secure a new tenant once a space becomes vacant before it must be replaced with a conforming land use. A second amendment addresses the permit process to reestablish a

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 774
nonconforming use from a conditional use permit to a minor use permit. This reduces the application fee and review period since the minor use permit would be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator rather than the PTC. The minor use permit process also allows the Zoning Administrator to impose a time limit on the duration of the nonconforming use if necessary to make the required findings, which could address concerns with repeated continuation of the nonconforming use.

When considering a determination on Zoning Ordinance amendments, Municipal Code Section

18.35.080(A) requires the City Council to make specific findings, which are included in Attachment

3. Zoning Map Amendment
To reflect the inclusion of three new Zoning districts in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, a Zoning Map amendment is required. Refer to Figure 4 below and Attachment 3, Exhibit A, which align with the Northeast Area Specific Plan’s Zoning Districts Map (Section 4.2, Attachment 4, Exhibit A). This amendment would reclassify sites zoned Light Industrial (IL) to either Production and Innovation, MU-NE-75, or MU-NE-90. The existing PG&E site (zoned Industrial Professional), as well as all three existing Planned Developments in the Northeast Area would remain unchanged.

When considering a determination on Zoning Map amendments, Municipal Code Section

18.35.080(B) requires the City Council to make specific findings, which are included in Attachment

3. Figure 4. Zoning Map Amendment
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Northeast Area Specific Plan has been prepared to evaluate the potential

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 775
environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plan (Attachment 1, Exhibit A and Exhibit B). The Northeast Area Specific Plan EIR is a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168, allowing for streamlined environmental review of subsequent development projects consistent with the Northeast Area Specific Plan and analysis in the EIR. The Northeast Area Specific Plan EIR was initiated through a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies between July 1, 2024 through August 6, 2024. Staff also held a public scoping meeting at the August 5, 2024 PTC meeting to discuss the project and solicit public input on the scope and content of the EIR.

Following finalization of development projections, the Draft EIR and associated appendices were then completed and published for a 45-day public review period from March 2, 2026 through April 16, 2026. Refer to Attachment 1, Exhibit A for the Draft EIR and related appendices. In addition, a public hearing at the March 16, 2026 regular PTC meeting was held to present findings of the Draft EIR and to solicit input from the PTC and community. During the 45-day public review period, a total of eight public comment letters from stakeholders, local agencies, and state agencies were received. No comments resulted in new analysis or environmental effects not previously evaluated.

A Final EIR was subsequently prepared that includes responses to all comment letters and includes any necessary text revisions to the Draft EIR. These responses to comments and text revisions, coupled with the Draft EIR, form the Final EIR. The Final EIR was published on the project webpage on May 7, 2026.

Summary of EIR Findings
With implementation of the increased development standards described previously in this report, the Northeast Area Specific Plan is projected to yield an increase in housing units and commercial uses, as well as a corresponding increase in jobs and residents as summarized in Table 5 below.

Presently, the Northeast Area contains approximately 2.6 million square feet of non-residential uses (equating to approximately 6,933 employees/jobs) and does not consist of any housing.

Table 5. Northeast Area Specific Plan Projected Net Change (20-Year Horizon) Category Net Increase
Non-Residential Land Uses 4,508,000 square feet
Jobs/Employees 9,794 employees 1
Housing Units 1,890 units
Residents 3,611 residents 2

1. Assumes the following jobs per square feet of the following land uses:
a. Office: 1 job per 247 square feet
b. Hospital: 1 job per 300 square feet
c. Research and development: 1 job per 366 square feet
d. Industrial: 1 job per 1,049 square feet

2. Assumes 1.99 persons per household

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 776
These projections were incorporated into the EIR for the 2045 General Plan Reset, certified on May 27, 2025. The Northeast Area Specific Plan Draft EIR, in turn, refers to certain conclusions and mitigation measures in the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR.

The Northeast Area Specific Plan EIR analyzes a range of environmental effects and identifies impacts as No Significant Impacts, Less than Significant, or Significant and Unavoidable. As discussed throughout the Draft EIR, most of the potentially significant impacts resulting from the Northeast Area Specific Plan are reduced to a Less than Significant level with implementation of existing General Plan policies, Project Requirements (discussed further in the report), and other standard requirements. Two environmental effects identified as Significant and Unavoidable are air quality and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions:
• Air Quality: The projected buildout would result in Significant and Unavoidable impacts to Air Quality because projected operational emissions and traffic growth would exceed Bay Area Air District thresholds. Although vehicle trips are projected to increase at a slightly higher rate than population growth, impacts to traffic and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would remain Less Than Significant due to the Northeast Area’s Transit Priority Area designation and TDM program requirements. Future development would also be required to implement measures addressing construction emissions and exposure to toxic air contaminants, including health risk assessments and air filtration requirements. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Impacts to GHG emissions are identified as Significant and Unavoidable because the City has not yet demonstrated consistency with the General Plan’s 2045 carbon neutrality targets. Although the City’s Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan meets current CEQA requirements and aligns with prior 2030 goals, it must still be updated to address the state’s 2045 GHG reduction targets under AB 1279.

Project Alternatives
The EIR evaluates four alternatives to the Northeast Area Specific Plan, which are aimed at reducing its significant environmental effects while feasibly retaining the Specific Plan’s overall project objectives. CEQA does not provide an established methodology for comparing the four project alternatives or determining the environmentally superior alternative. The project alternatives are summarized below:

1. No Project, No New Development Alternative: This alternative considers the impact of not approving the Northeast Area Specific Plan and assuming no new development takes place. Because this alternative would not result in changes to existing conditions, this alternative would avoid all Significant and Unavoidable effects of the Specific Plan.

However, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

2. No Project, Existing Plans Alternative: This alternative assumes the Northeast Area Specific Plan would not be approved but does assume that some redevelopment would occur based on existing land use and zoning requirements. Based on assumptions including development patterns, parcel size, and previous development inquiries, this alternative evaluates approximately 874,000 square feet of net new non-residential uses.

Because this alternative reduces non-residential development by approximately 80 percent, this alternative would fall within air quality thresholds (related to traffic and population growth rates). However, this alternative still would not meet most project objectives and would not result in corresponding benefits.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 777

3. Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions Alternative: To meet air quality thresholds, this alternative assumes reducing the Specific Plan’s buildout projection by 20 percent to reduce operational emissions below the applicable threshold. This equates to 3,606,400 square feet of net new non-residential uses, and 1,512 housing units. As a result, this alternative would reduce operational emissions; however, other air quality and GHG thresholds would still be exceeded. Because this alternative still results in new housing units and non-residential development, the project alternatives would partially be met, but not to the same extent and benefit as the full buildout projection.

4. Enhanced TDM Alternative: This alternative considers reducing new daily trips by an additional five percent, requiring an increase to minimum TDM reduction from 25 percent to 30 percent to fall within one Air Quality threshold. Many other Significant and Unavoidable impacts, however, would remain (other Air Quality and GHG emissions). This alternative would achieve all project objectives; however, the feasibility of all future development in the Northeast Area achieving 30 percent is unknown.

Under CEQA, the No Project, No New Development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative in that all new environmental effects would be avoided. However, none of the Northeast Area Specific Plan’s objectives or benefits would be accomplished. Beyond this alternative, the EIR provides that the Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions would be the next environmentally superior alternative in that environmental effects are reduced incrementally given the reduction in development.

Despite the lessened environmental effects of these project alternatives, staff do not intend to recommend approval of any alternative as they would not fully achieve the goals and objectives of the Northeast Area Specific Plan. Moreover, neither alternative would be consistent with the preferred land use scenario endorsed by the City Council in that the intended development and vision for the Northeast Area would not be achieved. In cases where no feasible alternative or mitigation can be identified to reduce significant impacts, the City Council is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations declaring that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental effects of the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations, included as Attachment 1, summarizes the various benefits of adopting the Northeast Area Specific Plan and certifying the EIR that outweigh the environmental effects.

EIR Project Requirements
As mentioned previously, most of the potentially significant impacts resulting from the Northeast Area Specific Plan are reduced to a Less than Significant level with implementation of General Plan policies, EIR Project Requirements, and other standard requirements. EIR Project Requirements act as mitigation to avoid significant impacts, most commonly during construction.

These requirements include preparing health risk assessments, preconstruction surveys for migratory birds, bird-safe design standards, and vibration control measures. All Project Requirements have been incorporated at Appendix A to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (Attachment 4, Exhibit A). These requirements will be administered as conditions of approval for future planning applications and will be monitored as specified in each requirement.

Final EIR
Following the public review period of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR has been prepared to respond to all comments and incorporate necessary text revisions (Attachment 1, Exhibit B). The response to comments and text revisions together with the Draft EIR form the Final EIR. Eight public

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 778
comment letters were submitted during the Draft EIR’s 45-day public review period, none of which raised new environmental effects or substantial text revisions warranting recirculation. All public comment letters on the Draft EIR are included as Appendix A in Resolution 1, Exhibit A. The revisions to the Draft EIR incorporated into the Final EIR include:
• Update to Figure 2.4-1 to match updated General Plan Land Use designations. • Text revisions to Project Requirements to clarify applicability and enforcement. • Added reference to a cap installed at 495 Bragato Road in accordance with the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.

The Final EIR was published online on May 7, 2026. Email notification directly to all public commentors on the Draft EIR was issued on May 7, 2026, providing notice of availability of the Final EIR.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW:

Because of the land use and maximum building height changes proposed in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) is required to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Carlos Airport (San Carlos ALUCP). On April 23, 2026, the ALUC recommended approval and determined consistency with the San Carlos ALUCP subject to the following conditions:
• Amend Section 4.5 (Attachment 4, Exhibit A) to: 1) identify limited residential care facilities and senior residential care facilities in mixed use districts as conditionally permitted (rather than permitted by-right) consistent with the San Carlos ALUCP and 2) include an additional regulation referencing SCMC 18.21.150(A) for community assembly uses (3,500 square feet or more), cinemas/theaters, and large-scale commercial entertainment and recreation uses.
• Amend Section 4.6 (Attachment 4, Exhibit A) to include an additional regulation referencing SCMC 18.21.150(A) for hospitals, cinemas/theaters, and large-scale commercial entertainment and recreation uses.

These revisions to the Northeast Area Specific Plan will be incorporated into the final version prior to returning for the second reading of the corresponding Ordinance by the City Council. Lastly, the C/CAG Board reviewed the Northeast Area Specific Plan and determined consistency with the San Carlos ALUCP at its May 14, 2026 meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Since the last City Council study session on September 8, 2025, the project team received several comments (included in Attachment 9). As of the preparation of this report, public comments concerned the following topics and suggestions:
• Encourage supportive housing
• Increase supply of extremely-low income units
• Encourage inclusion of public parks
• Opposition to parking maximums due to the parking demand in the area • Opposition to the location of the District Mobility Hub • The height and land use for sites south of Taylor Way are too intense since they are close

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 779
to single family neighborhoods
• Extend Class 1 bike facilities on Old County Road to the Caltrain Station • Increase maximum residential density and building height for MU-NE-90 zone • Encourage allowing additions to nonconforming uses
In addition, planning and public works engineering staff from the City of Belmont submitted a comment letter encouraging ongoing coordination with respect to shared watershed, utility systems, and roadways. The project team will continue coordination with City of Belmont staff as they continue to prepare their Specific Plan for the Harbor Industrial Area.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

A public notice for this City Council public hearing was issued and mailed on May 28, 2026 to all property owners and occupants/tenants within the Northeast Area and within 300 feet of the Northeast Area Specific Plan boundary. In addition, this public notice was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on May 29, 2026. Refer to Attachment 10 for proof of publication.

In addition to the public notice, announcement of this public hearing was provided to the project’s email list, on the project webpage www.sancarlosnortheastplan.com, through the City’s social media platforms, and the Council Newsletter.

DISCUSSION:

No specific discussion topics or policy questions are presented as part of the public hearing discussion; however, the City Council may consider structuring their questions and discussion of this item based on the actions requested in this public hearing:

1. Northeast Area Specific Plan

2. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments

3. Environmental Impact Report
NEXT STEPS:

Should the City Council adopt the two Resolutions and introduce the two Ordinances as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, staff will return the two Ordinances to the City Council for a second reading, tentatively on June 22, 2026. The Northeast Area Specific Plan would be effective 30 days after the second reading.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Northeast Area Specific Plan; adopt a Resolution amending the San Carlos General Plan Land Use Map, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element; introduce an Ordinance amending the San Carlos Zoning Map and Municipal Code Title 18 – Zoning to repeal Chapter 18.14A, remove references to Chapter 18.14A within Chapter 18.07 and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 780
Chapter 18.30, enacting Chapter 18.14.2, and amending Chapter 18.19; and introduce an Ordinance adopting the Northeast Area Specific Plan; or

2. Do not adopt the two Resolutions and do not introduce the two Ordinances; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner; and
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_________________________________
Kathy Kleinbaum, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution 1 - Certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Exhibit A to Resolution 1 – Northeast Area Specific Plan Draft EIR with Appendices Exhibit B to Resolution 1 – Northeast Area Specific Plan Final EIR Exhibit C to Resolution 1 – Findings of Fact
Exhibit D to Resolution 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Resolution 2 – General Plan Amendments
Exhibit A to Resolution 2 – San Carlos General Plan Land Use Map Amendment Exhibit B to Resolution 2 – San Carlos General Plan Amendments

3. Ordinance 1 – Amend the San Carlos Zoning Map, and the San Carlos Municipal Code Exhibit A to Ordinance 1 – Zoning Map Amendments
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2 – Chapter 18.14.2
Exhibit C to Ordinance 3 – Amendments to Chapter 18.19

4. Ordinance 2 – Adopt the Northeast Area Specific Plan Exhibit A to Ordinance 2 – Northeast Area Specific Plan, April 2026

5. PTC Resolutions Adopted on May 18, 2026 (Resolution No. PTC2026-03, PTC2026-04, PTC2026-05, PTC2026-06)

6. September 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes

7. Amendments to Land Use Regulations – Mixed Use

8. Amendments to Land Use Regulations – Industrial

9. Public Comments Since September 8, 2025

10. Public Notice – Proof of Publication

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 781
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 – ____

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

CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN.

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2022 Strategic Work Plan that included a Strategic Objective for preparation of the Northeast Area Specific Plan and reaffirmed this Strategic Objective in subsequent Strategic Work Plans including the 2026 Strategic Work Plan; and
WHEREAS, in September 2022 the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Perkins&Will for consulting services to prepare a Northeast Area Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) and Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), in response to the City Council’s Strategic Objective to develop a plan that includes policies and strategies for development and housing in the northeast area; and
WHEREAS, between February 2023 through July 2025, 30 different civic engagement opportunities inclusive of focus group meetings, pop-up events, open-houses, community workshops, and study sessions with the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission were held to receive input on the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2024, the City Council endorsed the preferred land use scenario for the Northeast Area Specific Plan that determines the anticipated buildout of land uses in the Northeast Area Specific Plan boundary through the year 2045 that introduces housing to advance a vision for a new mixed use district; and
WHEREAS, the City released a Notice of Preparation for the EIR soliciting public input on its scope from July 1, 2024 through August 6, 2024; and WHEREAS, in July 2024, the City provided written notification of the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan and EIR to the list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18, and no tribes requested consultation; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024, the City conducted a public hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regular meeting to present the anticipated buildout of land uses and solicit input on the scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the anticipated buildout of the Northeast Area Specific Plan was evaluated in the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR certified by the City Council on May 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, a Public Draft of the Northeast Area Specific Plan was available for public review in April 2025 and was presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission in April 2025 and to the City Council in May 2025 and September 2025 who directed modifications to the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Map, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element of the General Plan (herein referred to as “General Plan Amendments”)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 782
have been developed to be internally consistent and prepared consistent with the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and General Plan Amendments were circulated for a 45-day public review period from March 2, 2026 through April 16, 2026 to solicit agency and public input on the analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Specific Plan anticipated buildout during which period, a total of eight comment letters were submitted; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the City conducted a public hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regular meeting to present the Draft EIR findings and solicit input from the community and Planning and Transportation Commission; and WHEREAS, in April 2026 following input from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council, the Final Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan was available for public review outlining a complete vision and guiding principles for the northeast area with refined land uses and development standards and incorporated an appendix of EIR project requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations presented herein address the significant environmental effects of the Northeast Area Specific Plan that are described and analyzed within the EIR. These Findings have been made pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable environmental effects that could result from implementation of the Specific Plan related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2026, a Final EIR incorporating responses to public comment letters and text revisions to the Draft EIR was available for public review; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2026, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. PTC2026-03 recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Northeast Area Specific Plan and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City mailed a public notice to all property owners and occupants/tenants within the Specific Plan boundary and within 300 feet of the Specific Plan boundary informing stakeholders of the proposed adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan project; and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 783
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2026, a legal notice was published in the local newspaper informing stakeholders of the proposed adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan project; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to certify the EIR for the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the San Carlos City Council that:

1. The above recitals and findings are hereby incorporated by this reference and are hereby approved.

2. Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the EIR for this project, as well as the supporting administrative record, the City hereby makes the findings set forth herein pursuant to, and in accordance with, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

3. Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant:

The subject program-level EIR is intended to serve as a public information and disclosure document identifying and analyzing those environmental impacts resulting from the project that are expected to be significant and describing mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts and increase beneficial effects. Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the EIR, it was determined that the Northeast Area Specific Plan would not result in a potential significant effect on the environment with respect to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, parks and recreation, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Therefore, no further findings are required for these subject areas.

4. Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Environmental Quality Public Resources Code 21081 and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require that the City balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefit of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining to approve a project. And if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effect, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.”
Potential significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions were identified for the project. The Findings of Fact are included in Exhibit C.

5. Statement of Overriding Considerations:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 784
The City Council of the City of San Carlos adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Northeast Area Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) and the anticipated benefits of the proposed project.

CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable, and the agency must state the specific reasons to support the action in a “statement of overriding considerations” supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines §15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project in connection with approval of the proposed project. The City Council finds that even with mitigation, implementation of the project carries with it significant and unavoidable environmental effects, as identified in the EIR and summarized below.

Adoption of the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:

Impact AIR-1: Buildout of the Specific Plan would increase daily trips by 203 percent, and increase the service population by 193 percent. Since the rate of increase in population would be exceeded by the rate of increase in daily trips, the Plan would have a significant criteria air pollutant emissions impact.

Impact AIR-3: Buildout of the Specific Plan would result in annual and average daily emissions of ROG and NOx associated with operation of the Plan that would exceed the Bay Area Air District project-level significance thresholds.

Impact AIR-C: Buildout of the Specific Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions.

Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed the GHG emissions threshold of no net increase from existing conditions and would therefore not make substantial progress toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under SB 32 or the carbon neutrality goal under AB 1279.

Impact GHG-C: Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant cumulative GHG impact.

Overriding Considerations:

The City Council has carefully considered each significant, unavoidable project impact in reaching its decision to approve the proposed project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan could carry with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as identified in the EIR.

The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts for the proposed project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 785
benefits, that outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impacts and support approval of the proposed Specific Plan. Any one of these benefits, as set forth below, is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits is in the record as a whole.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the possibility of the significant and unavoidable effects. The City finds that each of the proposed benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the EIR and other information in the administrative record.

Economic Benefits:
a. The proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan would transform an existing industrial neighborhood over the next 20 years into a modern, mixed-use neighborhood that advances the life sciences and biotechnology sectors and allows for the creation of new housing.
b. Allowing approximately 1,890 new housing units, where no housing currently exists, and approximately 4.5 million square feet of new commercial uses supports and incentivizes property investment and redevelopment, which would increase property values and revenue to support City services. c. Consistent with the City Council Strategic Goal in the 2026 Strategic Agenda pertaining to housing, allowing for the creation of more housing facilitates housing opportunity for all income levels.
d. Incentivizing redevelopment will help implement multimodal transportation investments, open space creation, and flood mitigation furthered by community benefit contributions.

Legal Benefits:
a. The Northeast Area Specific Plan and associated amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would ensure internal consistency and address requirements mandated under State law.
b. Adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan strengthens San Carlos’ legal framework for future development decisions and supports compliance with State housing obligations.

Social Benefits:
a. The Northeast Area Specific Plan furthers capacity to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) into the future, increasing the development potential beyond what is already identified in the 6th cycle of the Housing Element.
b. The provision of ground floor active uses incentivizes creation of new businesses that future residents need and enjoy, while fostering a sense of place within the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 786
community where residents and visitors can socialize and reducing the need to make new vehicle trips outside the vicinity.
c. Inclusion of new streetscape designs, pedestrian improvements, and open space enhancements improve public safety and increase access to parks and recreational opportunities.

Technological Benefits:
a. Recognizing the development interest in life sciences and biotechnology sectors, the Northeast Area Specific Plan supports continued growth of innovationoriented industries through updated land use policies and modern development standards.
b. The Northeast Area Specific Plan would guide redevelopment in a manner consistent with up-to-date California Building Code Standards, Energy Efficiency Standards, and Cal Green requirements.

Environmental Benefits:
a. The EIR further promotes an update to the Climate Action Plan to meet the GHG reduction targets.
b. The proposed project would protect Belmont Creek and other natural habitats, increase the planting and maintenance of street trees, maintain the City’s urban forest, invest in natural infrastructure, and expand access to parks and open space.
c. Inclusion of an updated Transportation Demand Management program, parking requirements, and an emphasis on multimodal transportation would encourage a modal shift to reduce vehicular trip generation from new development that is feasible, attainable, and based on industry best-practices. d. Incentivizing redevelopment through the Northeast Area Specific Plan encourages cleanup of contaminated sites, replacement of outdated infrastructure, and improved stormwater and runoff controls. e. Enactment of various environmental resilience strategies enhances the northeast area’s protection from flooding and sea-level rise.

6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
a. As referenced in the Findings of Fact (Exhibit C), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project and is to be adopted concurrently with these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. The MMRP is a separate, stand-alone document that the City will use to track compliance with the project mitigation measures. The MMRP (Exhibit D) will remain available for public review during the compliance period, which includes pre-construction

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 787
coordination, construction, and post-construction documentation for future development projects.

7. Adoption
a. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report for the Northeast Area Specific Plan as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices
B. Final Environmental Impact Report
C. Findings of Fact
D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 788
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
DraŌ EIR
Northeast Area Specific Plan
March 2026
SCH# 2024070063

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 789
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 i Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report...................................................................... 1

1.2 EIR Process........................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Final EIR/Responses to Comments....................................................................................... 3 Section 2.0 Project Information and Description .......................................................................... 4

2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Project Background.............................................................................................................. 4

2.3 2045 General Plan Reset .................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Project Description............................................................................................................. 10

2.5 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................. 38

2.6 Uses of the EIR ................................................................................................................... 38 Section 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation....................................................... 40

3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 44

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 53

3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 57

3.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................... 87

3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 118

3.6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 130

3.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 139

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 149

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................... 167

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................................... 187

3.11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 203

3.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................ 208

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 210

3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 243

3.15 Public Services.................................................................................................................. 248

3.16 Recreation........................................................................................................................ 261

3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 266

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 279

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................ 283

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 790
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 ii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 306 Section 4.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts....................................................................................... 310 Section 5.0 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................... 311

5.1 Irreversible Use of Nonrenewable Resources .................................................................. 311

5.2 Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Use ......................................................... 311

5.3 Irreversible Damage Resulting from Environmental Accidents Associated with the Project ......................................................................................................................................... 312 Section 6.0 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts...................................................................... 313 Section 7.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 314

7.2 Project Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 315 Section 8.0 References.............................................................................................................. 328 Section 9.0 Lead Agency and Consultants................................................................................. 333

9.1 Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................... 333

9.2 Consultants ...................................................................................................................... 333 Section 10.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................. 334 Figures
Figure 2.1-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2.1-2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.1-3: Aerial Map...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.2-1: Existing Zoning Map ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.4-1: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations............................................................ 11 Figure 2.4-2: Proposed Zoning District Map ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.4-3: Allowable Base Building Height Map............................................................................ 14 Figure 2.4-4: Bonus FAR and Height Map.......................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.4-5: Proposed Transportation Network............................................................................... 19 Figure 2.4-6: Bragato Road Section ................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.4-7: Glenn Way Section ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 2.4-8: Industrial Road Section................................................................................................. 22 Figure 2.4-9: New North-South Street Section .................................................................................. 23 Figure 2.4-10: Old County Road Section............................................................................................ 24 Figure 2.4-11: Quarry Road Section................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.4-12: Taylor Way Section..................................................................................................... 26

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 791
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 iii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Figure 2.4-13: Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network................................................................. 28 Figure 2.4-14: Sea Level Priority Zone ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 2.4-15: Creek Front Zone........................................................................................................ 36 Figure 3.3-1: Residential Development and 1,000-foot Influence Area............................................. 86 Figure 3.4-1: Biotic Habitats.............................................................................................................. 91 Figure 3.4-2: Potential Bat Roost Sites............................................................................................ 106 Figure 3.9-1: Sources of Contamination within the Plan ................................................................. 177 Figure 3.13-1: Noise Measurement Locations................................................................................. 220 Figure 3.13-2: San Carlos Airport 2035 Noise Contours .................................................................. 222 Figure 3.13-3: Noise Contours for the Cumulative (2045) Without Plan (No Build) Traffic Scenario230 Figure 3.13-4: Noise Contours for the Cumulative (2045) With Plan (Build) Traffic Scenario.......... 231 Figure 3.15-1: Elementary School District Boundaries .................................................................... 253 Figure 3.17-1: Existing Transportation Network.............................................................................. 270 Figure 3.19-1: Water Service Area Boundaries................................................................................ 293 Figure 7.2-1: Potential Redevelopment Sites Under No Project, Existing Plans Alternative ............ 319 Tables
Table 1.1-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................ viii Table 2.2-1: Existing Zoning Districts in the Plan Area (San Carlos Municipal Code [SCMC] 18.07.010, E, G; 18.10.010)................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2.4-1: Plan Development Projections ...................................................................................... 10 Table 2.4-2: Proposed Zoning District Standards............................................................................... 12 Table 2.4-3: Proposed Street Network .............................................................................................. 17 Table 2.4-4: Vehicle Parking Maximums............................................................................................ 29 Table 2.4-5: EV Parking Requirements .............................................................................................. 29 Table 2.4-6: Bicycle Parking............................................................................................................... 30 Table 2.4-7: Resiliency Development Standards ............................................................................... 32 Table 2.4-8: Residential TDM Requirements..................................................................................... 37 Table 2.4-9: Non-Residential TDM Requirements............................................................................. 37 Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List ................................................................................................ 42 Table 3.0-2: Geographic Considerations in Cumulative Analysis....................................................... 43 Table 3.3-1: Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants ........ 58 Table 3.3-2: Bay Area Air District Plan-Level Air Quality Significance Thresholds.............................. 64

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 792
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 iv Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.3-3: Bay Area Air District Air Quality Significance Thresholds............................................... 65 Table 3.3-4: Bay Area Air District Health Risks and Hazards Thresholds............................................ 65 Table 3.3-5: 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures .......................................................................... 66 Table 3.3-6: Daily Trip and Population Increase Comparison ............................................................ 70 Table 3.3-7: Operational Period Emissions........................................................................................ 73 Table 3.3-8: Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin Emissions (in tons/day).......................... 81 Table 3.4-1: Special-Status Animals with the Potential to Occur in the Plan ..................................... 95 Table 3.5-1: Historic Period Buildings in the Plan............................................................................ 122 Table 3.6-1: Estimated Annual Energy Use...................................................................................... 135 Table 3.8-1: Bay Area Air District GHG Significance Thresholds ...................................................... 158 Table 3.8-2: CMAP Consistency Analysis......................................................................................... 162 Table 3.9-1: Summary of Known On-Site Sources of Contamination............................................... 175 Table 3.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria..................................................................... 211 Table 3.13-2: General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines....................................................... 214 Table 3.13-3: General Plan Non-Transportation Noise Standards................................................... 215 Table 3.13-4: Noise Exposure Requirements and Limitations ......................................................... 219 Table 3.13-5: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA)................................................ 221 Table 3.13-6: Existing and Future Modeled Noise Levels Along Surrounding Roadways................. 228 Table 3.13-7: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................ 234 Table 3.13-8: Minimum Distances to the Nearest Tracks to meet Vibration Thresholds for Proposed Buildings within the Plan Area......................................................................................................... 241 Table 3.14-1: Estimated Residents and Employes Under Existing Conditions and Proposed Plan... 246 Table 3.17-1: Trip Generation Estimates......................................................................................... 276 Table 3.17-2: Proposed Intersection Configuration Modifications.................................................. 277 Table 3.19-1: Water Service Area for Northeast Area Specific Plan Buildout.................................. 298 Table 3.19-2: Projected Water Demand within Cal Water’s Service Area (AFY).............................. 299 Table 3.19-3: Projected Water Demand within MPWD’s Service Area (AFY)................................... 299 Table 3.19-4: Projected Wastewater Generation Increase.............................................................. 301 Table 3.19-5: Projected Solid Waste Generation............................................................................. 302 Table 7.2-1: Development Summary of Project and Alternatives Selected ..................................... 317 Table 7.2-2: Comparison of Impacts from Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................ 322

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 793
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 v Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Appendix C: Biological Resources Report
Appendix D: Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment Appendix E: Flood Impact Study
Appendix F: Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix G: Transportation Analysis
Appendix H: Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District Water Supply Assessment Appendix I: MPWD Water Supply Assessment
Appendix J: Proposed Infrastructure Narrative
All appendices are incorporated herein by reference.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 794
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 vi Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Summary
The City of San Carlos, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Northeast Area Specific Plan (referred to herein as the “Plan”) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As the CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the City of San Carlos is required to consider the information in this EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts including growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

Summary of Project Location and Description
The Plan consists of approximately 145 acres, roughly bound by Belmont Creek, U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), the western property lines of the residential parcels along Northwood Drive, the northeastern property lines of the residential parcels along Fairfield Drive, the southeast property line of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and Old County Road in the City of San Carlos (City). For the purposes of this analysis, Belmont Creek will be considered north, U.S. 101 will be considered east, the residential parcels along Northwood Drive and Fairfield Drive and the southeast property line of PAMF will be considered south, and Old County Road will be considered west.

In response to the City’s growth trajectory, as part of the City of San Carlos 2022 Strategic Goals1 ,
the City Council directed staff to prepare the Plan to manage and direct changes in the development patterns and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provision, open space, and community benefits.

The purpose of the Plan is to create a vision, policies, and standards to guide new development within the Plan area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, future residents, and the overall community. The Plan will manage and direct changes in the development patterns within the Plan area and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provisions, and community benefits.

The Plan anticipates new development and change over an approximate 20-year period, through 2045, and would allow for an increase of 1,890 residential units (no residential units exist within the 1 City of San Carlos. “Northeast Area Development Moratorium.” Accessed February 3, 2026. https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/community_development/planning/northe ast_area_development_moratorium.php

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 795
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 vii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Plan area currently), as well as an increase in the net new square footage of existing non-residential land uses within the Plan area (4,508,000 square feet).

Summary of Significant Impacts
The EIR includes a detailed discussion of the existing setting, impacts, and Plan requirements proposed to protect environmental resources and avoid and/or reduce impacts. The project description and full discussion of impacts and mitigation measures can be found in Section 2.0 Project Information and Description and Section 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation. Table 1.1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in this Draft EIR and presents a summary of significant impacts and mitigation measures identified.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 796
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 viii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 1.1-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
Aesthetics
No Significant Impacts
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No Significant Impacts
Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: Buildout of the Plan would
increase daily trips by 203 percent, and
increase the service population by 193
percent. Since the rate of increase in
population would be exceeded by the
rate of increase in daily trips, the Plan
would have a significant program-level
criteria air pollutant emissions impact.

S General Plan Policies to Reduce Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to these long-term, regional criteria air pollutant emissions:
• 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 the incorporation of Transportation Demand Measures in new development to reduce traffic
impacts.
• Policy CSH-6.2: Support transit-oriented development with mixed, dense land use that reduces the need to travel and that is linked to good transit. The City shall work with local, regional and State representatives to encourage the support and
funding of transit oriented development projects
• Policy EM-11.4: Provide an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfares that connects jobs and housing to other city destinations, as recommended in the San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
• Policy EM-11.6: Encourage employers to incentivize employee use of mass transit and alternative modes of transportation. • Policy EM-11.9: Coordinate with major employers, neighboring municipalities, transit agencies and providers to enhance regional transit and shuttle service.

SU

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 797
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 ix Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
• Policy EM-11.10: Evaluate and encourage new forms of mass transit.
• Policy EM-11.11: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance that
contains strategies to reduce vehicle trips.
• Policy EM-11.12: Include in the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance a requirement that new office
development over a certain size include showers and safe and secure bike racks to encourage employees to bicycle to work.

Impact AIR-2: Future construction under
the Plan, if uncontrolled, could result in
temporary dust and diesel exhaust
impact to nearby receptors or exceed
acceptable levels for projects. In
addition, NOx emissions during grading
and soil import/export for large projects
may exceed the Bay Area Air District NOx
emission thresholds for projects.

S General Plan Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current BAAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current BAAQMD Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions.

LTS
Impact AIR-3: Buildout of the Plan would
result in annual and average daily
emissions of ROG and NOx associated
with operation of the Plan Area would
exceed the Bay Area Air District projectlevel significance thresholds.

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 798
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 x Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
District’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.

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

Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the
Plan could result in uses that would
result in significant exposures of TACs
and PM2.5.

S Health Risk Project Requirements
• Health Risk Assessments. Applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors or worker receptors as defined by the Bay Area Air District (e.g., residential, schools) shall prepare a site-specific construction and operational health risk assessment (HRA) prior to project approval. If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 799
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xi Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than Bay Area Air District project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed the Bay Area Air District project level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed to further reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Future construction
activities associated with build out under
the Plan could result in the loss of fertile
eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory
birds, or nest abandonment.

S Special-Status Species Project Requirements
• Avoid Nesting-Season Construction if Feasible. To the extent feasible, demolition and construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds in San Mateo County extends from February 1
through August 31, inclusive. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. • Conduct Pre-activity Survey for Active Nests. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities and/or tree removal between September 1 and January 31, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project
implementation. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of demolition or construction activities, including tree removal and pruning.

During this survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the City’s Planning Manager.

LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 800
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
• Provide a Buffer around Active Nests. If an active nest (i.e., a nest with eggs or young) is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code shall be disturbed during project implementation.

Impact BIO-2: Future demolition
activities under the Plan could result in
direct physical disturbance of any
roosting bats that may be present,
possibly resulting in injury or mortality,
as well as the loss of roosting sites.

S Roosting Bat Project Requirements
• Conduct Pre-Activity Surveys for Roosting Bats. A pre-activity habitat assessment and survey for roosting bats shall be conducted prior to removal or renovation of buildings. The habitat assessment and survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist. If the biologist determines that a building provides no suitable bat roost sites, no bat survey would be necessary, but if suitable roost sites exist, a visual survey shall be conducted during the daytime to determine whether bats are present. During this survey, the biologist shall look for bats and evidence of their presence (e.g., guano or urine staining). If the visual survey cannot adequately determine whether bats are present, a dusk survey shall be conducted during suitable weather conditions for bat activity to determine whether bats enter or exit the roost. If no active roosts are found, then no further action is warranted. If a roost is present, a qualified biologist shall determine the species and number of individuals present and implement further measures as described below.

Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the biologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and avoidance requirements to the City’s Planning Manager.
• Avoid Disturbance of Active Roosts. If an occupied roost is found in a structure that would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the structure. If the roost is unoccupied at the LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 801
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xiii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
time of the survey, the project proponent may have a qualified biologist install bat exclusion devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset of the proposed activity. If avoidance is not feasible, the following measures shall be implemented.
• Avoid Disturbance of Maternity Roosts. If an active maternity roost is present within the building to be demolished or disturbed and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied roost, disturbance shall not take place during the maternity season (as determined by the qualified biologist, but approximately April 1 to August 31), and an appropriate disturbance-free buffer zone (also
determined by the qualified biologist) shall be observed during this period to avoid disturbing the roosting bats. Following the maternity season, bats can be excluded as described below. • Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active non-breeding roost cannot be avoided, the individuals shall be safely evicted outside the maternity season (as determined by the qualified biologist) between approximately September 1 and April 1. Exclusion methods may include the installation of one-way doors, use of ultrasonic deterrence devices, changing air flow and temperature regimes in the roost space, or other methods that would not trap bats or involve handling bats.

One-way doors and/or deterrence devices should be left in place for a minimum of two weeks with a minimum of five fairweather nights with no rainfall and temperatures no colder than 50°F.

Impact BIO-3: Future development
under the Plan would introduce new
sources of artificial lighting that could
impact wildlife.

S Artificial Lighting Project Requirements
• The following measures will be implemented during any renovation or redevelopment under the Plan that involves new outdoor lighting or replacement of existing lighting with fixtures or luminaires that are not identical in intensity, wavelength, and directionality to those being replaced.

LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 802
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xiv Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
o Through a combination of proper fixture selection, low mounting height, glare shielding, and orientation/aiming of light fixtures, the design team shall actively control
undesirable spill of light toward sensitive habitat areas (i.e., Belmont Creek, other drainage channels and
associated wetland and riparian habitat, or vegetated open space areas). All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded to block illumination from shining outward toward such
sensitive habitat areas and to prevent the lit portions of these fixtures (i.e., the lamps) from being directed toward the sensitive habitat areas.
o Outdoor lighting fixtures shall incorporate lamps with a Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 Kelvin or less.
o Up-lighting shall be avoided, all fixtures shall have a backlight, uplight, and glare (BUG) up-light rating of U0, and the maximum vertical illuminance at any point in the plane of the property line will be 0.05 footcandle, unless the following conditions are met:
 All up-light is directed at building facades such
that no light spills upwards past a structure (e.g.,
into the sky) or outwards into adjacent areas.
 The fixture is programmed to switch off between
10:00 p.m. and sunrise.

Impact BIO-4: Future development
under the Plan could result in bird
collisions, causing injury or death.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts from Bird Collisions In accordance with General Plan Action EM-1.5, future developments would be required to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions through the use of the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practices.
• Action EM-1.5: Require that new buildings and taller
structures that extend above the existing surrounding
urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 803
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xv Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best
management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.

Bird safe-design measures and best management practices may include:
o Avoid the use of highly reflective glass as an
exterior treatment, which appears to reproduce
natural habitat and can be attractive to some
birds,
o Limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from
attracting birds in building plans by utilizing lowreflectivity glass and providing other nonattractive surface treatments, o Use low-reflectivity glass or other glazing
treatments for the entirety of the building’s glass
surface, not just the lower levels,
o For commercial buildings, interior light “pollution”
should be reduced during evening hours through
the use of a lighting control system,
o Exterior lighting should be directed downward
and screened to minimize illuminating the
exterior of the building at night, except as needed
for safety and security,
o Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass
walls, and transparent building corners should not
be allowed,
o Transparent glass should not be allowed at the
rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction
with green roofs, and
o All roof mechanical equipment should be covered
by low-profile angled roofing so that obstacles to
bird flight are minimized.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 804
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xvi Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
Bird Collision Project Requirements
• Renovation and redevelopment under the Plan shall implement the following bird-safe building design considerations for all buildings exceeding 40 feet above ground within 300 feet of Belmont Creek or any contiguous open space areas (including other drainages and future open space areas created by the Plan) two acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats:
o The extent of glass on the façades of new buildings and additions shall be minimized to the extent feasible.
o No more than 10 percent of the surface area of the façades of buildings (considering all facades combines) shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above
ground. Bird-safe glazing treatments may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and/or physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or ultraviolet patterns visible to birds. Bird-safe glazing shall have the following specifications:
 Vertical elements of the window patterns will be
at least ¼-inch wide at a maximum spacing of 4
inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8-
inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches; OR
 Bird-safe glazing shall have a Threat Factor less
than or equal to 30.
o No more than 10 percent of the surface area of any façades directly facing Belmont Creek or any open space areas two acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or
wetland/aquatic habitats, and/or façade areas within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces, shall have untreated glazing.
o All glazing panels at corners of façades that face Belmont Creek or any open space areas two acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats, between the ground and 60 feet above ground and/or within 12 vertical feet above

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 805
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xvii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
and/or below landscaped terraces (regardless of their height above ground), shall be 100 percent treated.
o To reduce reflections of clouds and vegetation in glass and help ensure that bird-safe treatments on the lower surfaces of glass are visible below any reflections, glazing shall have a visible reflectance of 15 percent or lower.
o Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners between the ground and 60 feet above ground and/or within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces (regardless of their height above ground) shall not be allowed, unless the glazing is 100 percent treated.
o Transparent glass should not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs, unless the glazing is 100 percent treated.
o A project may receive a waiver from one or more of the requirements above if a qualified biologist documents that glazing in a particular area will not increase bird collision risk or documents why alternative bird-safe design measures would be at least as effective as the above requirements. Any such waiver must be approved by the City.

Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Future development
projects under the Plan could indirectly
or directly impact known and unknown
historic buildings and structures by
removing historic buildings and
structures, or altering the setting for
historic properties.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts to Historic Resources Future development projects would comply with the following General Plan policies and actions pertaining to historic resources. • Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties.
• Policy LU-12.2: Foster the preservation, restoration and compatible reuse of architecturally and/or historically significant structures and sites.

LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 806
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xviii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
• Policy LU-12.3: Ensure that modifications to identified historic resources are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • Policy LU-12.4: Encourage continued use and adaptive reuse of designated historic resources through application of the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitation, reconstruction and restoration.
• Policy LU-12.6: Promote the maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation of historical resources through but not limited to the use of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, State incentives including the Mills Act and the California Cultural and Historical Endowment and the California State Historical Building Code. • Action LU-12.1: Ensure thorough compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to potential impacts to cultural and historical resources.

Impact CUL-2: Future development
projects under the Plan could
inadvertently discover unknown
archaeological resources during
construction.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts to Archaeological Resources • Policy LU-1.10: Require that development within the Pulgas, Brittan and Cordilleras Creek watersheds shall preserve watershed integrity, including natural vegetation, soil and slope stability, water quality, scenic values and potential
archaeological resources.
• Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties.

LTS
Impact CUL-3: Future development
projects under the Plan could
inadvertently discover human remains
during construction.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts to Human Remains • Policy LU-12.5: Treat with respect and dignity any human remains discovered during implementation of public and
private projects within the city and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.

LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 807
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xix Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
Impact GEO-1: Future development
under the Plan could directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving liquefaction.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts from Liquefaction • ESPS-1.1: The City Building Official shall verify geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist. These reports shall address the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on the findings of these reports, the City shall require that new structures are designed and built to withstand the effects of seismically-induced ground failure.

LTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the
Plan would exceed the GHG emissions
threshold of no net increase from
existing conditions and would therefore
not make substantial progress toward
the long-term GHG reduction goal under
SB 32 or the carbon neutrality goal under
AB 1279.

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

The CMAP update shall include the following:
o GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG
levels.
o Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to
ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction
goal and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 of AB
1279.

SU

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 808
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xx Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
o Plan implementation guidance that includes, at
minimum, the following components consistent with
the CMAP update:
 Administration and Staffing
 Finance and Budgeting
 Timelines for Measure Implementation
 Community Outreach and Education
 Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive
Management
 Tracking Tools
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Future development
within the Plan could encounter and
disturb contaminated soil, soil vapor,
and groundwater, and result in adverse
effects on construction workers, existing
residents and employees, and nearby
sensitive receptors.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts
The following General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with contaminated soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater from future development in the Plan:
• ESPS-5.3: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new
development projects through the environmental review
process, design criteria and standards enforcement.
• ESPS-5.5: Where deemed necessary, based on the history of land use, require site assessment for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior to approving development project
applications.
• ESPS-5.6: Require that new development proposals are
reviewed for legally required remediation by authorities with jurisdictional authority over groundwater and surface water contamination including but not limited to San Mateo County Environmental Health, State Water Quality Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers, where waters of the United States are involved, and collaborate with authorities to ensure all relevant remediation requirements are met.

LTS
Land Use and Planning

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 809
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxi Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
No Significant Impacts
Mineral Resources
No Significant Impacts
Noise
Impact NOI-1: Future construction
associated with development under the
Plan could result in temporary
construction noise impacts.

S General Plan Polices that Reduce Impacts
In accordance with General Plan Policy NOI-1.8, future development projects under the Plan would implement the following noise control strategies and construction BMPs.
• NOI-1.8: Construction activities shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Development projects that require an
acoustical study shall incorporate reasonable noise and vibration reduction measures and best management practices to minimize excessive noise levels during all phases of construction activity. Reduction measures and best
management practices may include, but are not limited to, noise control techniques for construction tools and equipment, construction site management techniques, temporary noise barriers, noise monitoring and reporting, and/or construction traffic management. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:
• Limit construction activity to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and weekends between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., with no construction on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, 4th of July, Labor Day,
Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day;
• Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where such technology exists;
LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 810
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
• Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far
away as possible from adjacent land uses;
• Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
• If impact pile driving is proposed, multiple-pile drivers shall be considered to expedite construction. Although noise
levels generated by multiple pile drivers would be higher than the noise generated by a single pile driver, the total duration of pile driving activities would be reduced;
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise control blanket barriers shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the adjacent land uses. Such noise
control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected; • If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile holes shall be pre-drilled to minimize the number of impacts
required to seat the pile. Pre-drilling foundation pile holes is a standard construction noise control technique. Predrilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the pile. Notify all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing;
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem
are implemented.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 811
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxiii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
• Conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site and
include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction.

Impact NOI-2: Future development
under the Plan could result in interior
noise levels in excess of 45 dBA.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Operational Noise Impacts • NOI-1.6 and NOI-1.10: New developments within the Plan Area shall be required to comply with City noise standards set forth in the General Plan and SCMC. To ensure compliance with the operational noise level thresholds required in the General Plan and SCMC, a qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review mechanical equipment systems during final design of the proposed project consistent with standards City practice.

The consultant shall review selected equipment and determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Noise
reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Additionally, enclosures and interior wall treatments shall be considered to reduce noise exposure within the on-site units. Alternate measures may include locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.

LTS
Impact NOI-2: Future construction
associated with development under the
Plan could result in damage to existing
buildings from temporary construction
vibration.

S Vibration Control Project Requirements:
• A construction vibration control plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional in accordance with industry-accepted methodology. The plan shall identify necessary construction vibration controls to reduce the potential of cosmetic damage to buildings and to minimize annoyance. Controls may include, but would not be limited to, the following measures:
o A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for the project known to produce high vibration levels (tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams,
LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 812
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxiv Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds.
o Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.
o Use smaller equipment along project boundaries to
minimize vibration levels below the limits.
o Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.
o Select demolition methods not involving impact tools. o Modify/design or identify alternative construction
methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.
o Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials near sensitive uses.
o For projects requiring impact or vibratory pile driving, develop a vibration monitoring and construction
contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring
schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction
conditions. Construction contingencies shall be identified for when vibration levels approached the limits. Conduct a post-construction survey on structures where either
monitoring has indicated high vibration levels or
complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate
repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a
result of construction activities.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 813
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxv Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
Impact NOI-3: Future residential uses
under the Plan could potentially fall
within the 55 dBA CNEL of the San Carlos
Airport.

S General Plan Policies that Reduce Project Impacts
In accordance with General Plan Policies NOI-1.11 and NOI-1.13, future residential development within the 55 dBA CNEL would implement mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts from aircraft operations. • NOI-1.11: Ensure that proposed noise sensitive land uses include appropriate mitigation to reduce noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Carlos Airport. Work with the San Carlos Airport Pilots Association and San Mateo County to continue to refine and implement the Airport’s noise
abatement procedures.
• NOI-1.13: Require a noise analysis for new residential uses located within the 55 CNEL impact area of the San Carlos Airport. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.

LTS
Population and Housing
No Significant Impacts
Public Services
No Significant Impacts
Recreation
No Significant Impacts
Transportation
No Significant Impacts
Tribal Cultural Resources
No Significant Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 814
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxvi Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Significant Impact Significance without
Mitigation
General Plan Mitigation Measures and/or Policies and Specific Plan Project Requirements
Significance with
Mitigation
No Significant Impacts
Wildfire
No Significant Impacts

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 815
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxvii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Summary of Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to the project as proposed. The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR must identify alternatives that would feasibly attain the most basic objectives of the project, but avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects, or further reduce impacts that are considered less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. A summary of project alternatives follows. A full analysis of project alternatives is provided in Section 7.0 Alternatives Analysis.

Location Alternative
Location alternatives are frequently considered to reduce the site-specific impacts of a project. A Location Alternative would need to be at least of comparable size and have the potential to accommodate similar uses as the Plan (approximately 145 acres) in the City of San Carlos. There are no alternative locations that are of similar size to the Plan area within the City. In addition, the intent of the Plan is to manage and direct changes in the development patterns within the Plan area and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provisions, and community benefits within the specific geographic area that comprises the Plan. Therefore, it would be infeasible to evaluate an alternative location in the City. The Plan must, by its nature, guide future development located in the Plan area. Accordingly, to evaluate another location for the Plan would not be meaningful for the purposes of making a decision about the proposed project.

Therefore, a location alternative is not evaluated further in this EIR.

All Employment Alternative
The All Employment Alternative would not reclassify portions of the Plan to Mixed-Use, 75-90 du/acre and would remain Planned Industrial. It is assumed that if this area remained Planned Industrial, it would be developed with up to 5,293,642 square feet of employment uses. None of the significant impacts of the project are directly related to the inclusion of housing in the Plan.

Under this alternative, the scale of development would be similar to the Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the Plan’s significant impacts. This alternative would not meet the project’s fundamental objectives to introduce housing in the Plan area to accommodate future population growth in San Carlos, some of which planned housing within the Plan area is intended to satisfy some of the City’s mandated housing during future RHNA cycles. Therefore, since this alternative does not meet the basic objectives of the project and would not reduce significant impacts, this alternative was not evaluated further.

GHG Reduction Alternative
This EIR does not evaluate an alternative that would reduce the Plan’s significant GHG impact.

Consistent with the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, development under the Plan would exceed the GHG emissions threshold of no net increase from existing conditions and would therefore not make substantial progress toward the long-term GHG reduction goal under SB 32 or the carbon neutrality goal for 2045 under AB 1279. The City has committed to implementing Mitigation Measure GHG-1,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 816
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxviii Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
which would ensure that the City prepares a CMAP update to chart a trajectory to achieve the longterm year 2045 GHG reduction goal and State's carbon neutrality goal set by AB 1279. It is unclear at this time if carbon neutrality can be achieved by 2045, or what form or amount of development could occur within the Plan area that would achieve carbon neutrality. Therefore, this alternative was not evaluated further.

No Project, No New Development Alternative
Under the No Project/No New Development Alternative, the Plan area would remain as it is today (i.e., 2,617,497 square feet of light industrial, office, and institutional uses). Because the No Project, No New Development Alternative would not result in changes to existing conditions, this alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of the Plan. However, under this alternative, many of the beneficial environmental resiliency standards that would be required under the Plan would not be implemented. For example, the existing setbacks to Belmont Creek would remain as they currently are, while the Plan would increase the setback from Belmont Creek for properties undergoing redevelopment adjacent to Belmont Creek to 35 feet from top of bank.

Further, since no redevelopment would occur under this alternative, new publicly accessible open space would not be established. The No Project, No New Development Alternative would be environmentally superior but not meet any of the project’s objectives.

No Project, Existing Plans Alternatives
The No Project, Existing Plans Alternative, assumes what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Plan were not approved, based on current plans, i.e. the existing adopted General Plan. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the Plan area would be redeveloped with up to 874,00 square feet of net new non-residential uses. This alternative would not introduce new housing within the Plan Area and, as a result, would not fulfill the Plan’s objective of accommodating future population growth in the City or meeting housing needs identified through future Housing Element cycles. The No Project, Existing Plans Alternative would lessen some of the environmental impacts of the Plan. However, this alternative would not accomplish most of the Plan’s objectives. Similar to the No Project, No New Development Alternative, this alternative would also not accomplish any of the Plan’s environmental benefits (i.e., enhanced creek setbacks and flooding improvements).

Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions Alternative
The Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions Alternative would reduce NOx emissions by 20 percent in order to reduce emissions below the threshold of 10 tons per year. In order to achieve this level of reduction in emissions, the Plan’s development would need to be reduced by an equivalent of 20 percent. Assuming that both the residential and non-residential development included in the Plan were reduced by 20 percent, this equates to a Plan that would allow up to 3,606,400 square feet of non-residential building area and 1,512 residential units. To reduce the Plan’s ROG emissions below the threshold of 10 tons per year would require an approximately 80 per reduction in the amount of new development, and therefore this alternative instead focuses on the more achievable goal of avoiding the Plan’s significant NOx impact. The Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions Alternative

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 817
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxix Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
would reduce the Plan’s significant NOx emissions disclosed in Impact AIR-3 to less than significant, however, the Plan’s ROG emissions, while reduced, would remain significant and unavoidable. All other environmental impacts under this alternative would be similar or less than the proposed Plan.

Enhanced TDM Alternative
The purpose of the Enhanced TDM Alternative is to further reduce daily trips in the Plan by an additional five percent (i.e. increasing from 25 percent to 30 percent) in order to match the rate of population growth.2 Having the rate of VMT growth match the rate of service population growth would lead the Plan to comply with the Air District Plan-level threshold, thereby reducing the Plan’s significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant emissions impacts (Impact AIR-1). As discussed in Section 2.3.6 of this EIR, all new development in the Plan would be subject to TDM requirements that would achieve a minimum 25 percent vehicle trip reduction. Under this alternative, future development would need to achieve an additional five percent reduction of daily vehicle trips, for a total reduction of 30 percent in vehicle trips. This alternative assumes that the Plan would be redeveloped with the same amount of development as proposed by the Plan, i.e. up to 4,508,000 square feet of non-residential and up to 1,890 residential units. The Enhanced TDM Alternative would reduce Impact AIR-1 to less than significant. All other environmental impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed Plan. However, the feasibility of future development under the Plan being able to achieve a 30 percent trip reduction is unknown.

Issues to be Resolved
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of San Carlos, as lead agency, related to:
• Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project.
• Whether the benefits of the proposed project override environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. • Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
• Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the proposed project besides those goals, policies, or mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. • Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic objectives.
2 Reducing the Plan’s gross trips by 30 percent equates to 38,212 trips. The Plan would remove 2,282 existing trips, resulting in a net increase of 35,930 trips. With the 30 percent reduction, the alternative’s rate of increase would equal 189 percent over existing, which is less than the 193 rate of increase for population growth.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 818
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 xxx Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Areas of Controversy
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies on July 1, 2024.

The 36-day comment period concluded on August 6, 2024. Environmental concerns from local residents, property owners, organizations, and/or agencies about the project related to:
• Air quality
• Climate change and sea level rise
• Land use compatibility
• Hazards and hazardous materials
• Transportation and circulation
• Water Quality

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 819
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 1 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
The City of San Carlos, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Northeast Area Specific Plan (referred to as the “Plan” herein) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15121(a)). As the CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the City of San Carlos is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts including growthinducing impacts, cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a), a Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

Program EIRs allow for a more exhaustive consideration of effects, cumulative impacts, and alternatives than would be practical for a series of individual project-level EIRs. A Program EIR also allows lead agencies to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures to deal with basic environmental issues and cumulative effects through the use of “tiering”. Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR in later environmental review documents prepared for projects with a narrower scope or more limited geographic scale (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15152). To use the tiering concept, the later EIR or Initial Study incorporates by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR and concentrates on the issues specific to the later project and effects that were not identified in the prior EIR. This EIR provides both program- and limited project-level environmental review for the Plan.

This EIR will allow for streamlined environmental review of subsequent development projects consistent with the Plan and analysis in this EIR. When individual projects or activities under the Plan are proposed, the City would examine the projects or activities to determine whether their effects were adequately analyzed in this EIR, as provided under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168(c), 15168(d), 15182, and/or 15183.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 820
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 2 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that later activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d) stipulates that a program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later activities in the program, and that the program EIR can (1) provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have significant effects; (2) be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole; and (3) focus an EIR on a later activity to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before. CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 describes the terms for CEQA exemption eligibility for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects consistent with a Specific Plan.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 stipulates that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan (such as the proposed Plan), or General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.

If subsequent projects within the Northeast Area, consistent with the Plan, are found to be within the scope of this EIR, additional environmental documents may not be required. If a subsequent activity would have effects that were not identified in this EIR, the City would require preparation of additional environmental review as applicable.

1.2 EIR Process

1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Carlos prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR. The NOP was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies on July 1, 2024. The 36-day comment period concluded on August 6, 2024. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed project and identified possible environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the project. The City of San Carlos also held a public scoping meeting on August 5, 2024 to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and contents of this EIR. The meeting was held at the Planning and Transportation Commission regular meeting location in the City Hall Council Chambers, 600 Elm Street. Appendix A of this EIR includes the NOP and comments received on the NOP.

1.2.2 Draft EIR Public Review and Comment Period
Publication of this Draft EIR will mark the beginning of a 45-day public review period. During this period, the Draft EIR will be available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the availability and completion of this Draft EIR will be sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP, as well as the Office of

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 821
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 3 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Planning and Research. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period should be sent to:

City of San Carlos Planning Division
Attention: Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
600 Elm Street, San Carlos California 94070-3085
[email protected]

1.3 Final EIR/Responses to Comments
Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period, the City of San Carlos will prepare a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will consist of:
• Revisions to the Draft EIR text, as necessary;
• List of individuals and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15088);
• Copies of letters received on the Draft EIR.

Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings. If the lead agency approves a project despite it resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This Statement of Overriding Considerations must be included in the record of project approval.

1.3.1 Notice of Determination
If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office and available for public inspection for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094(g)).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 822
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 4 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 2.0 Project Information and Description

2.1 Project Location
The Plan consists of approximately 145 acres, roughly bound by Belmont Creek, U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), the western property lines of the residential parcels along Northwood Drive, the northeastern property lines of the residential parcels along Fairfield Drive, the southeast property line of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and Old County Road in the City of San Carlos (City). For the purposes of this analysis, Belmont Creek will be considered north, U.S. 101 will be considered east, the residential parcels along Northwood Drive and Fairfield Drive and the southeast property line of PAMF will be considered south, and Old County Road will be considered west. Please refer to Figure 2.1-1, Figure 2.1-2, and Figure 2.1-3 for maps showing the project location and surrounding context.

2.2 Project Background
Since 2015, the City has experienced an unprecedented level of private sector investment, including business and employment growth in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors in East San Carlos.

Historically, East San Carlos has been home to low-intensity commercial and industrial businesses and is currently seeing an increased interest in Research and Development uses. To plan for these changes, the City approved the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan in October 2021. The East Side Innovation District Vision Plan covers a portion of east San Carlos as the area bound by Holly Street, Brittan Avenue, Old County Road, and Highway 101. The plan established strategies for managing and harnessing growth in the area.

Since approval of the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan in 2021, developer interest has expanded further north and east of Old County Road, referred to as the Northeast Area. A portion of the area covered under the proposed Plan was annexed into the City in 1997, and since that time there have been very few changes to the land use regulations in the area.

In response to the City’s growth trajectory, as part of the City of San Carlos 2022 Strategic Goals, the City Council directed staff to prepare the Plan to manage and direct changes in the development patterns and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provision, open space, and community benefits.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 823
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
Seaport Boulevard
o W do is de R oad Middlefield Road
Veterans Boulevard
Whipple Avenue
eJ ffe sr on A venue
Alameda De La s Pulgas
San Carlos Av e nue
Ralsto n Avenu e
Cañada Road
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
Seaport Boulevard
o W do is de Road Middlefield Road
Veterans Bouleva
rd
Whipple Avenue
eJ ffe sr on Avenue
Alameda De La s Pulgas
San Carlos Av e n
u
e
Ralsto
n Avenu
e
Cañada Road
280
101
101 San Carlos City Boundary
Project Site
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 500 3,000 4,000 6,000 Feet
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.1-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 5 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Industrial Road
Holly Street
Taylor Way
Bragato Road Quarry Road
Harbor Boulevard Belmont Creek
Belmont Creek
Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood Shores Parkway
Shorelin e D r vi e
Ralston Avenue
El Camino Real
Old County Road
Old County Road
Caltrain
Caltrain
Industrial Road
Holly Street
Taylor Way
Bragato Road Quarry Road
Harbor Boulevard Belmont Creek
Belmont Creek
Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood Shores Parkway
S
h
o
re
l
i
n
e
Dr ve i
Ralston Avenue
El Camino Real
Old County Road
Old County Road
Caltrain
Caltrain
101
101
City of Belmont
Project Boundary
Belmont City Boundary
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 200 800 1,200 2,000 Feet
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.1-2
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 6 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Greater East
San Carlos
Neighborhood
Holly Street
Redwood Shores Parkway
Industrial Road
Old County Road
Old County Road
Harbor Boulevard
Quarry Road
Belmont Creek
Bragato Road
Glenn Way
Taylor Way
El Camino Real
Holly Street
Redwood
Shores Park
way
Industrial Road
Old County Road
Old County Road
Caltrain
Caltrain
Harbor Boulevard
Quarry Road
Belmont Creek
Bragato Road
Glenn Way
Taylor Way
El Camino Real
Twin Dolphin Drive
101
101
City of Belmont
Photo Date: Apr. 2022
0 150 600 900 1,500 Feet
Project Boundary
Belmont City Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 6, 2024.

San Carlos
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROJECT SITE FIGURE 2.1-3
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 7 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 8 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

2.2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning
The entire Plan area has a current General Plan land use designation of Planned Industrial. This Planned Industrial land use designation allows research and development, biotechnology (biotech), light industrial, flex space3
, warehousing, and related uses.4
Parcels in the Plan area are currently regulated under a range of zoning districts, as summarized in Table 2.2-1 and shown in Figure 2.2-1 below.

Table 2.2-1: Existing Zoning Districts in the Plan Area (San Carlos Municipal Code [SCMC]

18.07.010, E, G; 18.10.010)
Zoning District Description
IL: Light Industrial The IL: Light Industrial district is intended to accommodate a diverse range of light industrial uses,
including general services, research and development,
biotechnology, warehousing, and service commercial
uses. It includes industrial complexes, flex space, and industrial buildings for single and multiple users,
warehouses, wholesale, commercial recreation, and
other related uses. Small-scale retail and ancillary
office uses are also permitted.

IP: Industrial Professional The IP: Industrial Professional district is intended for large or campus-like office and technology
development that includes office, research and
development, manufacturing, and other large-scale
professional uses. Permitted uses include incubator
research facilities, prototype manufacturing, testing,
repairing, packaging, and printing as well as offices
and research facilities. Accessory or secondary smallscale retail uses that serve local employees and visitors are also permitted.

PD: Planned Development The PD: Planned Development district provides for one or more properties to be developed under a plan
that provides for better coordinated development and
incorporates development standards crafted to
respond to site conditions.
3 “Flex space” means floor area constructed so that it can be adapted for retail/restaurant use in the future, but may be used for other uses in the interim.
4 A figure showing existing General Plan land use designations is not provided since the entire Plan area is within the Planned Industrial designation.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 827

BELMONT SAN CARLOS

INDUSTRIAL ROAD

TAYLOR WAY

GLENN WAY

BRAGATO ROAD

QUARRY ROAD

OLD COUNTY ROAD

HARBOR BLVD

HOLLY ST

NORTHWOOD DR

RIVERTON DR

INVERNESS DR

ELMER ST

FAIRFIELD DR

SYLVAN DR

SPRINGFIELD DR
US HIGHWAY 101

EL CAMINO REAL

BELMONT CREEK
IL: Light Industrial
IP: Industrial Professional
PD: Planned Development
Project Boundary
Legend
EXISTING ZONING MAP FIGURE 2.2-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 9 Document Type
Date
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 10 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

2.3 2045 General Plan Reset
On May 27, 2025, the City Council certified the 2045 General Plan Reset Final EIR and adopted the 2045 General Plan Reset. The Final EIR considered buildout projections that included the anticipated growth in the Plan, but did not adopt land use changes in the Plan.

2.4 Project Description
The purpose of the Plan is to create a vision, policies, and standards to guide new development within the Plan area in a way that supports existing and new businesses, future residents, and the overall community. The Plan will manage and direct changes in the development patterns within the Plan area and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provisions, and community benefits.

The Plan anticipates new development and change over an approximate 20-year period, through 2045, and would allow for an increase of 1,890 residential units (no residential units exist within the Plan area currently), as well as an increase in the net new square footage of existing non-residential land uses within the Plan area, as summarized in Table 2.4-1 below.

Table 2.4-1: Plan Development Projections
Land Use Allowable Square Footage Net Increase
Non-Residential 4,508,000
Residential 1,890,000 (1,890 units, assuming 1,000 sq.ft./unit) Net Increase Total 6,398,000

2.4.1 Proposed Land Use and Zoning Districts
Proposed Land Use Designations
The Plan would remain largely Planned Industrial. As shown on Figure 2.4-1, portions of the Plan (approximately 28 acres) would be reclassified to Mixed-Use, 75-90 du/acre. The Mixed-Use, 75-90 du/acre permits both commercial and multi-family residential uses at residential densities of 75-90 dwellings units per acre.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 829

SAN CARLOS CALTRAIN STATION

SAN CARLOS

AIRPORT

BELMONT CALTRAIN STATION
1/2 MILE FROM BELMONT CALTRAIN STATION
1/2 M LI E FROM SAN CARLOS CALTRA NI STAT OI N

INDUSTRIAL ROAD

TAYLOR WAY

GLENN WAY

BRAGATO ROAD

QUARRY ROAD

OLD COUNTY ROAD

HARBOR BLVD

HOLLY ST

NORTHWOOD DR

RIVERTON DR

INVERNESS DR

ELMER ST

FAIRFIELD DR

SYLVAN DR

SPRINGFIELD DR
US HIGHWAY 101

EL CAMINO REAL

BELMONT CREEK
NEW STREET Planned Industrial
Mixed-Use 75-90 DUs/Acre
Project Boundary
Legend
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FIGURE 2.4-1 Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 11 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 12 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Proposed Zoning Districts
The Plan’s zoning districts are listed in Table 2.4-2 and shown on Figure 2.4-2. Figure 2.4-3 depicts the allowable building height for each land use classification and Figure 2.4-4 depicts the potential allowable bonus density (for residential), floor area ratio5 (FAR) (for commercial/industrial) and
height for each zoning district.

Table 2.4-2: Proposed Zoning District Standards
Land Use
Classification Base
FAR Bonus FAR
Base
Height
(ft)
Bonus
Height
(ft)1,2,3
Density
(du/ac)
Corresponding Zoning
Districts
Planned
Industrial

1.5 to

2.0 No FAR cap 75 to 100 155 -- Production and Innovation

1.0 -- 100 -- -- Industrial Professional
Mixed-Use, 75-
90 du/acre
-- -- 90 -- 90 Mixed-Use Northeast
(MU-NE-90)
-- -- 75 -- 75 Mixed-Use Northeast
(MU-NE-75)
Notes:
1 The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport (ALUCP) dictates the maximum height permitted within the Plan to protect navigable airspace around the airport. 2 Bonus FAR and building height maximums are measured from above mean sea level. 3 All buildings within 130 feet of a single-family residential property shall stepdown to a maximum height of 35 feet.
5 FAR is a measurement used to describe the density of development on a site. FAR is calculated by dividing the total usable floor area of a building by the total lot size.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 831

OLD COUNTY ROAD

GLENN WAY

TAYLOR WAY

BRAGATO ROAD

NEW STREET

QUARRY ROAD

BELMONT CREEK

INDUSTRIAL ROAD
US HIGHWAY 101
1 2/ M LI E FROM SAN CARLOS CALTRA NI STAT OI N
1/2 MILE FROM BELMONT CALTRAIN STATION
PD-21
MU-NE-75
MU-NE-90 P-I PD-28
IP PD-18 P-I

P-I P-I P-I
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
Ground Floor Active Uses
Required Retail Corners
Required Industrial, Artisan, Manufacturing Frontages
Allowed Active Use Corridors
Project Boundary
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT MAP FIGURE 2.4-2
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 13 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
LEGEND
100 FEET
90 FEET
75 FEET
N/A
ALLOWABLE BASE BUILDING HEIGHT MAP FIGURE 2.4-3
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 14 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD COUNTY ROAD

GLENN WAY

TAYLOR WAY

BRAGATO ROAD

NEW STREET

QUARRY ROAD

BELMONT CREEK

INDUSTRIAL ROAD
US HIGHWAY 101
1 2/

M LI E FROM SAN CARLOS CALTRA NI STAT OI N
1/2 MILE FROM BELMONT CALTRAIN STATION
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
LEGEND
No FAR Cap,
Maximum Height - 155 Feet
BONUS FAR AND HEIGHT MAP FIGURE 2.4-4
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 15 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 16 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Production and Innovation
The Production and Innovation district is intended to accommodate a mix of light industrial uses, warehouses, commercial recreation, office and research and development uses. Smaller scale retail, artisanal manufacturing, and food and beverage uses are also permitted and encouraged on the ground floor to support pedestrian activation.

The Production and Innovation district would allow buildings to have a FAR ranging from 1.0 to 2.0, depending on the location of the proposed development. Depending on location within the classification, projects would have the potential to receive a bonus FAR through the community benefits program6 (refer Figure 2.4-4). As shown in Figure 2.4-2, the district would allow buildings to have a height ranging from 75 to 100 feet from finished grade depending on the location of development.7,8 Projects within this district would have the potential to receive a maximum height allowance of 155 feet above mean sea level, depending on location, if bonus requirements are met, and found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport (refer to Figure 2.4-4).

Mixed-Use Residential Northeast
The Mixed-Use Residential Northeast district is intended for medium to high density multi-family residential uses with active ground floor uses such as retail, personal services, and food and beverage uses, providing a transition from Production and Innovation to Single Family Residential zoning districts that lie to the southeast, and outside of the Plan area. The Mixed-Use Residential Northeast district would allow 75 to 90 dwelling units per acre.

As shown in Figure 2.4-2, the Mixed-Use Residential Northeast district would allow buildings to have a height ranging from 75 to 90 feet, depending on the location of the development.

Additionally, all buildings within 130 feet of the rear lot line of a single-family residential property would be required to stepdown to 35 feet.

Industrial Professional
The Industrial Professional district is intended for large or campus-like office and technology development that includes office, research and development, manufacturing, and other large-scale, professional uses. The classification would allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 and a maximum height of 100 feet as summarized in Table 2.4-2 and shown in Figure 2.4-4, respectively. 6 Bonus FAR and building heights apply to certain areas in the Plan where development can earn an FAR or Building Height bonus in exchange for community benefits.
7 The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport (ALUCP) dictates the maximum height permitted within the Plan to protect navigable airspace around the airport. The ALUCP utilizes above mean sea level (AMSL) for purposes of measuring height limits. 8 Elevations in the Plan area range from 13 to 50 feet above sea level.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 835
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 17 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Planned Development
The Plan would maintain the previously approved Planned Development (PD) Plans (adopted by Ordinance as PD-18, PD-21 and PD-28), which accommodate the existing private (PAMF) institution, 642 Quarry Road, and 201 Industrial Road sites.

Non-Conforming Uses
Conforming uses existing prior to the adoption of the proposed Plan may continue in accordance with Chapter 18.19 of the San Carlos Municipal Code, as amended by the project. 9 2.4.2 General Plan Text Amendments
To ensure consistency between the City’s General Plan and the proposed Plan, the project includes text amendments to policies in the General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, and Environmental Safety and Public Services Element.

2.4.3 Circulation Improvements
The Plan would create and enhance well-defined connections (including a new road extension, pedestrian and multi-purpose paths, protected bicycle lanes, and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and districts) to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.

Roadway Improvements
Streets within the Plan would be designed to create opportunities for a variety of travel options, including sidewalks and designated bicycle facilities. The proposed street network is shown on Figure 2.4-5 and summarized in Table 2.4-3 Roadway sections are provided in Figures 2.4-6 through

2.4-12.

Table 2.4-3: Proposed Street Network
Street Vehicle Lanes Street Parking Multi-Use
Curb Zone1
Pedestrian Path Bike Lanes
Bragato Road Two-way, 10-
feet wide lanes
Accommodated
on both sides of
the street
11-feet wide
on both sides
of street
9-feet wide sidewalks
with 10-feet wide
setbacks between
buildings/sidewalk on
both sides of street
Class III (10-
feet wide
shared lane)
9 The project includes Zoning Ordinance amendments that would increase the length of time in which a nonconforming use can be replaced with nonconforming use before it must be replaced with a permitted use. In addition, the amendments would require a minor use permit, instead of a conditional use permit, to re-establish a prior nonconforming use.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 836
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 18 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Street Vehicle Lanes Street Parking Multi-Use
Curb Zone1
Pedestrian Path Bike Lanes
Glenn Way Two-way, 10-
feet wide lanes
Accommodated
on both sides of
the street
8-feet wide
on east side
of street and
9-feet wide
on west side
of street
8-feet on both sides
of street.

Class III (10-
feet wide
shared lane)
Industrial Road Two-way, 10-
feet wide lanes
10-feet wide
center turning
lane
Accommodated
on both sides of
the street
11-feet wide
on both sides
of street
9-feet wide on east
side of street and 8-
feet wide on west
side of street
Class I (5-
feet wide
protected
lanes on
both sides
of street)
New NorthSouth Street Two-way, 10-
feet wide lanes
Accommodated
on both sides of
the street
11-feet wide
on both sides
of street
9-feet wide on both
sides of street
Class III (10-
feet wide
shared lane)
Old County
Road
Two-way, 10-
feet wide
northbound
and 12-feet
wide
southbound
None 5-feet wide
on east side
of street
8-feet wide sidewalk
on the east side of
the street with 10-
foot setback between
buildings/sidewalk
Class I (12-
feet two
way
protected
lane)
Quarry Road Two-way, 10-
feet wide lanes
Accommodated
on both sides of
the street
11-feet wide
on both sides
of street
9-feet wide on both
sides of street
Class III (10-
feet wide
shared lane)
Taylor Way Two-way, 10-
feet wide lanes
Accommodated
on one side of the
street
10-feet wide
on south side
of street
8-feet wide on both
sides of the street
Class I (10-
feet wide
two-way
protected
lane)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 837
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063
City of San Carlos
19 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
Paseo
Belmont Creek Trail
Class I Bikelane
Sharrow
Sidewalks
District Mobility Hub
Small Mobility Hub
Transit Corridor on El Camino Real
Legend

NEW ROADWAY
0 200 400 800 Feet
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FIGURE 2.4-5
June 08, 2026
BRAGATO ROAD SECTION FIGURE 2.4-6
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 20 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
GLENN WAY SECTION FIGURE 2.4-7
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 21 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
INDUSTRIAL ROAD SECTION FIGURE 2.4-8
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 22 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
NEW NORTH-SOUTH STREET SECTION FIGURE 2.4-9
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 23 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
OLD COUNTY ROAD SECTION FIGURE 2.4-10
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 24 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
QUARRY ROAD SECTION FIGURE 2.4-11
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 25 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
TAYLOR WAY SECTION FIGURE 2.4-12
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 26 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 27 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The Plan would implement the following roadway improvements:
• Implementation of a new north-south street segment connecting Quarry Road to Bragato Road
• Signalization of the Industrial Road and Taylor Way intersection • Installation of traffic calming measures (i.e., speed tables, curb extensions, reduced lane widths, physical buffers, high visibility markings, and wayfinding) at the following intersections:
o Quarry Road and new North-South Street
o Bragato Road and Glenn Way
o Taylor Way and Glenn Way
• Installation of rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB) at the following intersections:
o Quarry Road and Old County Road
o Industrial Road and Bragato Road
o Old County Road and Taylor Road
• Restricted parking (as shown on Figure 2.4-5)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
As summarized above in Table 2.4-3 and shown in Figure 2.4-13, the Plan would include pedestrian and bicycle improvements to create opportunities for a variety of travel options. Industrial Road, Old County Road, and Taylor Way would have two-way protected bike lanes.

The Plan includes three pedestrian paseos, one along the new north-south street connecting Bragato Road to Industrial Road, one connecting the proposed Belmont Creek to Quarry Road, and one connecting Taylor Way to the Greater East Side Neighborhood to facilitate more connectivity and accessibility in the district. A proposed 10-foot-wide trail along Belmont Creek provides an additional walking route to connect Old County Road to Industrial Road and fosters greater access with the natural features. It is anticipated that future development along Belmont Creek will implement the trail.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 846
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
LEGEND
Paseo
Belmont Creek Trail
Class I Bike Lane
Class III Bike Lane
F-Street Underpass
Sidewalks
District Mobility Hub
Small Mobility Hub
El Camino Real Transit
PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK FIGURE 2.4-13
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 28 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 29 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

2.4.4 Parking
Vehicle Parking
The Plan would implement parking maximums for all land uses, as summarized Table 2.4-4.

Table 2.4-4: Vehicle Parking Maximums
Land Use Minimum Parking Soft Maximum Parking
(per bedroom or per
1000 SF)1
Hard Maximum Parking
(per bedroom or per
1,000 SF)
Multifamily Residential -- 0.6 0.7
Office -- 1.5 2.2
R&D -- 1.0 1.6
Light Industrial -- 0.4 0.6
Retail and Dining -- 2.0 2.5
Hotel -- 0.7 0.9
Other non-residential
uses
-- 2.0 2.5
Notes:
1 To exceed soft maximum, certain requirements must be met including all parking must be shared, a parking demand study must be submitted to demonstrate the need for additional parking, and parking management plan must be prepared.

All electric vehicle (EV) parking would meet the specifications of either Calgreen Tier 2 or Tier 3 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). New development would provide EV parking as summarized in Table 2.4-5.

Table 2.4-5: EV Parking Requirements
Land Use EV Parking Spaces
Residential At least 1 parking space per 25 total spaces (round up) shall be equipped with a Tier 2 or Tier 3 EVSE charger.

Non-Residential At least 1 parking space per 25 total spaces (round up) shall be equipped with a Tier 2 and Tier 3 EVSE
charger.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 848
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 30 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Bicycle Parking
Short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be required onsite for all development in the Plan, as summarized in Table 2.4-6. Ten percent of the total required bicycle spaces would need to accommodate cargo/adaptive bicycles. In addition, one outlet or charger would need to be provided per five total spaces to accommodate electric bicycles.

Table 2.4-6: Bicycle Parking
Land Use Total Required Space Short Term1 Spaces
(percentage)
Long-Term2 Spaces
(percentage)
Residential 1 per unit 25 75
Office 0.67 per 1,000 sf 25 75
R&D 0.67 per 1,000 sf 25 75
Light Industrial 0.1 per 1,000 sf 25 75
Retail 0.4 per 1,000 sf 75 25
Dining 0.5 per 1,000 sf 75 25
Other Determined by zoning
administrator
75 25
Notes:
1 Short-term bicycle parking is intended to serve visitors to a site who generally stay for a short time (i.e., less than four hours).
2 Long-term bicycle parking is intended to serve visitors who generally stay for four hours or longer.

2.4.5 Utility Improvements
Stormwater
The Plan area is served by existing catch basins and storm drainpipes in Quarry Road, Bragato Road, Taylor Way, and Industrial Road. The stormwater is then conveyed into drainage ditches on the north side of Holly Street and the south side of US 101, which convey water to the right-hand shoulder of southbound 101 into a series of underground storm drainpipes that collect runoff and convey it beneath Highway 101 and into Phelps Slough. Phelps Slough drains runoff into a retention pond in Redwood Shores before it is pumped into Steinberger Slough, which ultimately drains into the San Francisco Bay.

The 2017 City of San Carlos Storm Drain Master Plan identified several storm drainpipes within the Plan area as being undersized, including an 18-inch pipe in Quarry Road, 24-inch pipe in Industrial Road, and 16-inch pipe in Bragato Road. Future development under the Plan would require construction of new storm drain pipes or development would be required to pay a fair share contribution to the improvement.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 849
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 31 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The Plan would include green stormwater infrastructure improvements along all roadways.10 Sanitary Sewer
Local wastewater is collected and conveyed to sanitary sewer mains in Industrial Road, which is then conveyed to the Silicon Valley Clean Water system and ultimately to the Silicon Valley Clean Water Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 2013 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan identified sewer lines within the Plan area that need repairs or replacements, including:
• A portion of sewer main along Industrial needs localized repairs • A portion of sewer main along Quarry Road needs localized repairs • A portion of sewer main along Old County Road needs localized repairs • A portion of sewer main along Quarry Road needs replacement • Several sewer mains that are smaller than eight inches will require replacement with larger pipe sizes for future development
Future development within the Plan area, as implementation occurs over 20 years, would need to conduct project-level analyses to account for then-existing conditions to determine whether the existing infrastructure could accommodate project flows (refer to discussion in Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems).

Domestic Water Infrastructure
The Plan area is served by water mains in Old County Road, Quarry Road, Bragato Road, Taylor Way, and Industrial Road.

The Plan would require that new development projects incorporate sustainable water use options, such as utilizing recycled water (if available) or on-site alternative water sources, such as graywater re-use systems, rainwater harvesting and re-use, or blackwater treatment and re-use systems.

2.4.6 Resiliency Standards
As shown on Figure 2.4-14, the southeastern corner of the Plan area is located within the 100-year flood zone. Development within the 100-year flood zone would be required to elevate the first floor above the 100-year base flood elevation.

To address flood risk and reduce impacts on existing drainage infrastructure, the Plan would require that all development implement the following resiliency standards summarized in Table 2.4-7.

The Plan also includes additional standards in the Sea Level Priority Zone and Creek Front Zone. The Sea Level Priority Zone encompasses the historic San Francisco Bay Shoreline, as shown on Figure 10 Green stormwater infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier urban environments.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 850
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 32 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

2.4-14. The Creek Front Zone is the area directly adjacent to Belmont Creek as shown on Figure

2.4-15. The Plan would increase the setback from Belmont Creek for properties undergoing redevelopment adjacent to Belmont Creek to 35 feet from top of bank.

Table 2.4-7: Resiliency Development Standards
Standard Description
Plan-Wide Development Standards
Open Space Dedication For properties greater than one acre (gross), new development shall dedicate 15 percent of the total
site area toward open space. All new open space shall
adhere to the landscaping standards in Chapter 18.18
of the SCMC.

All new residential development would be required to
comply with SCMC Section 17.32.030 and provide
parkland or pay in-lieu fees to the City to dedicate
parkland elsewhere.

Stormwater Management All future development in the Plan would be required to prepare a project-specific hydrology and hydraulic
analysis to demonstrate that peak stormwater flow is
reduced compared to pre-development conditions at
the point of connection to the existing storm drain
system under a 10-year storm.

When a project is developed and there is no storm
drain main serving that site or the new green
infrastructure implemented by the development, a
new public storm drain main shall be extended to the
project site and along the length of the project
frontage.

Groundwater Rise Vulnerability New development shall coordinate with the City of San Carlos and One Shoreline to assess groundwater
rise vulnerability and identify implementing measures
to protect new buildings from flooding and reduce
impact on existing drainage infrastructure.

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit New development shall be subject to the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). For
redevelopment projects, the “50 Percent Rule” shall
apply as noted in the San Mateo County C.3 Regulated
Projects Guide.

Projects that alter or replace less than 50 percent of
existing impervious surface shall treat stormwater
runoff only from the portion of the site that is
redeveloped. Projects that alter or replace 50 percent
or more of the existing impervious surface shall treat
runoff from the entire site.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 851
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 33 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Standard Description
Flooding Adaptation All new development within the Plan, regardless of whether the site is located within the 100-year flood
zone shall adhere to the San Carlos Municipal Code,
Chapter 15.56 - Flood Damage Prevention.

Critical site infrastructure (such as transformers and
generators) shall be elevated to provide resilience to
current and future flooding conditions in the area.

The City of San Carlos shall determine on a case by
case basis if an individual project requires a building height variance to accommodate proposed finished
floor elevations that have been elevated to provide
flood resilience.

For any new development within a 100-year flood
zone, the project would be required to set the finished floor elevation above the 100-year base flood
elevation (BFE).11
Sea Level Rise Future development shall assess sea level rise risk for the site and elevate the finished floor elevation of the new building further above the 100-year BFE to
provide resiliency to future sea level rise (2050).

Sea Level Rise Priority Zone
Drainage Channel Setback All development adjacent to an existing drainage channel would be required to adhere to additional
regulations, including a minimum 25 feet setback from
the edge of the channel. The setback shall be a natural buffer to support stormwater management.

Open Space Design Developments in this zone would be required to provide engineering detention basins as part of the
open space dedication.

Parking Areas Parking areas within this zone shall include low impact development (LID) strategies such as permeable
paving and enhanced green infrastructure facilities.

Creek Front Zone
Open Space Design 20 percent of each development site area shall be dedicated to open space. All landscaped open spaces
in this zone would remain accessible to the public.

Belmont Creek Setback Development shall setback 35 feet from the existing top of bank.

Riparian Bank The first 25 feet from the top of bank shall comprise of native riparian vegetation. This area, an interface
between the creek and the terrestrial environment
11 This does not account for any elevation for future sea level rise.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 852
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 34 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Standard Description
supports diverse habitats, and helps maintain water
quality by preventing erosion and filtering pollutants.

Multi-Use Path A multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists shall be built along the riparian landscape. The pathway shall
be at least 10 feet in width and shall be within the
required 35-foot Belmont Creek Setback.

Spillover Frontage Development should allow an additional buffer of 15 feet from the multi-use path to the building edge for
greater flooding protection and flexible recreational
spaces.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 853
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain
FEMA 500 Year Floodplain
4 Feet Sea Level Rise Zone
7 Feet Sea Level Rise Zone
›—›¬›¢Ÿ©›¨Ÿ¥¨Ÿª¯
¥¤›
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
LEGEND
SEA LEVEL PRIORITY ZONE FIGURE 2.4-14
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 35 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain
FEMA 500 Year Floodplain
4 Feet Sea Level Rise Zone
7 Feet Sea Level Rise Zone

¥¤›¥«¤š—¨Ÿ›©
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
LEGEND
CREEK FRONT ZONE FIGURE 2.4-15
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 36 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 37 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

2.4.7 Transportation Demand Management
All new development in the Plan would be subject to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements, unless otherwise noted below. The requirements are summarized in Table 2.4-8 and Table 2.4-9 below.

Residential developments that are 100 percent affordable would be exempt from TDM requirements. Additionally, the Community Development Director may grant an administrative exemption that reduces, modifies, or waives parts or all required TDM elements on a project-byproject basis.

Table 2.4-8: Residential TDM Requirements
TDM Strategy Small Projects (24 to 49
units)1
Large Projects (50 units or
more)
Provide non-driving transportation subsidies
(free or discounted transit passes, bicycle
subsidies, etc.)
-- Required
Implement non-driving education/marketing/
programs
Required Required
Retain an TDM coordinator or contact (on or
off-site)
Required Required
Unbundled Parking Required Required
Notes:
1 Residential projects with fewer than 24 units are exempt from TDM requirements.

Table 2.4-9: Non-Residential TDM Requirements
TDM Strategy Small Projects (10,000 to
49,999 GSF)1
Large Projects (50,000 GSF
or greater)
Unbundled Parking Required Required
Provide parking cash-out option Required Required
Provide non-driving transportation subsidies
(free or discounted transit passes, bicycle
subsidies, etc.)
-- Required
Provide pre-tax transportation benefits Required Required Provide ride matching services Required Required
Implement non-driving education/marketing/
programs
Required Required
Retain an on-site TDM coordinator or contact -- Required Provide a bike repair station Required Required
Notes:
1 Projects less than 10,000 GSF are exempt from TDM requirements.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 856
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 38 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

2.4.8 Sustainable Design Features
All new development would be built in accordance with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). The City of San Carlos regularly adopts each new CALGreen update under the SCMC Chapter 15.04.125 Title 24, Part 11. The Plan includes the following range of measures to be implemented on a project-by-project basis:
• Green parking lots
• Green roof with solar
• Rainwater collection systems
• Permeable pavement
• EV parking

2.5 Project Objectives
The primary purposes of the proposed project are to develop policies and standards to guide new development in the northeast area of San Carlos over a 20-year horizon and to:

1. Celebrate and maintain the area’s industrial legacy by continuing to allow for light industrial, research and development, including offices, in a way that supports both existing and new businesses within the overall district and supports economic development and fiscal stability.

2. Introduce housing in the district to balance the needs of living wage jobs, while accommodating future population growth in San Carlos to meet housing needs as part of future Housing Element cycles.

3. Support district wide access for all users, employees – future residents – and visitors alike, by providing multi-modal infrastructure that supports walkability, bikeability, public transportation, and vehicular transportation.

4. Address flooding and sea level rise through a robust resilience framework including improvements to Belmont Creek and green stormwater infrastructure.

5. Plan for the anticipated 4.5 million square feet of net new non-residential development through development standards and a community benefits framework that leverages public open space, street and trail improvements, and financial contributions that deliver tangible amenities that serve the district and broader community.

2.6 Uses of the EIR
This EIR provides decision-makers and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the proposed Plan. Future development projects proposed under the Plan would be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental review is needed. It is expected that this EIR would be used for appropriate discretionary and other approvals

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 857
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 39 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
necessary to implement the project, as proposed. These actions may include, but are not limited to, the following approvals:
• Specific Plan adoption
• General Plan Amendments
• Zoning Map Amendment
• Zoning Ordinance Amendment

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 858
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 40 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:

3.1 Aesthetics

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3.3 Air Quality

3.4 Biological Resources

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.6 Energy

3.7 Geology and Soils

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.11 Land Use and Planning

3.12 Mineral Resources

3.13 Noise

3.14 Population and Housing

3.15 Public Services

3.16 Recreation

3.17 Transportation

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

3.20 Wildfire
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:

Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.

Impact Discussion – This subsection includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts.
• Project Impacts – This subsection discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Mitigation measures are numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM BIO-1.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the first impact in the Biological Resources section. • Cumulative Impacts – This subsection discusses the project’s cumulative impact on the environmental subject. Cumulative impacts, as defined by CEQA, refer to two or more individual effects, which when combined, compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant effects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guideline Section 15130 states that an EIR should discuss cumulative impacts “when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” The discussion does not need to be in as great detail as is necessary for project impacts, but is to be “guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.”

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 859
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 41 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The purpose of the cumulative analysis is to allow decision makers to better understand the impacts that might result from approval of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the proposed project addressed in this EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines advise that a discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both their severity and the likelihood of their occurrence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). To accomplish these two objectives, the analysis should include either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections from an adopted general plan or similar document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)). This EIR uses a combination of both the “list” method and projection approach. The City of San Carlos certified the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR on May 27, 2025. The development projections in the EIR included citywide buildout capacity through 2045 (including the Plan).

The analysis must determine whether the project’s contribution to any cumulatively significant impact is cumulatively considerable, as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a)(3). The cumulative impacts discussion for each environmental issue accordingly addresses the following issues: 1) would the effects of all of past, present, and probable future (pending) development result in a significant cumulative impact on the resource in question; and, if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, 2) would the contribution from the proposed project to that significant cumulative impact be cumulatively considerable?
Table 3.0-1 identifies the approved (but not yet constructed or occupied) and pending projects in the project vicinity that are evaluated in the cumulative analysis.12 12 Approved and pending projects within the Plan boundaries are not reflected in this table since the growth associated with these projects has been accounted in the Plan’s development projections (refer to Table 2.4-1).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 860
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 42 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List
Name and Location Description Distance to
Proposed Project Status
Belmont Harbor
Industrial Area (HIA)
Specific Plan (City of
Belmont)
The City of Belmont is currently
preparing a Specific Plan for a portion
of the HIA, specifically a 62-acre area
east of Old County Road and west of
Highway 101, and directly north of the
Plan area. The Plan would be built out
over a period of 25 years and assumes
up to 3,900,000 square feet of nonresidential development and 303 residential units.

Adjacent Under Review
601 Harbor
Boulevard (City of
Belmont)
Construction of an approximately
380,000 square feet, four-story life
sciences building, including three
levels of below-grade parking on an
approximately 3.5-acre site located on
the corner of Old County Road and
Harbor Boulevard.

Adjacent Approved
1301 Shoreway
Road (City of
Belmont)
Redevelopment of a 6.9-acre site
currently developed with a 148,919
square feet office building and
associated parking lot and basketball
court. The new development would
include construction of Class-A
buildings for office, technology,
and/or R&D, including life sciences,
specifically one seven-story 271,589
square feet building, one eight-story
270,446 square feet building, and one
nine-level 441,280 square feet parking
garage.

0.1 Under Review
Alexandria District
for Science and
Technology (900,
960, 961, 967
Industrial Road;
1003, 1011
Commercial Street;
and 915, 1055 and
1063 Old County
Road, City of San
Carlos)
The project involves construction of
an office/research and development
(R&D) campus-style development
(totaling 1,734,532 square feet) on
the approximately 25.34-acre site
bounded by Industrial Road to the
east, Commercial Street to the north,
Old County Road to the west, and
Pulgas Creek to the south.

0.7 Under Review
789 Old County and
1026 Bransten Road
Project includes demolition of the
existing buildings and construction of
two new Life Science Research &
Development buildings (totaling

0.7 Under Review

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 861
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 43 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
320,117 square feet) and one parking
structure (694 parking spaces).
841 Old County
Road Project (803-
851 Old County
Road, San Carlos)
The proposed project would involve
the demolition of all existing buildings
and site improvements and the
construction of two new office /
research and development (R&D)
buildings: a 5-story, 193,852 square
foot building, and a 4-story, 131,621
square foot building, with maximum
heights of approximately 90 and 113
feet respectively, above a two-level
underground parking structure.

0.8 Approved
For each resource area, cumulative impacts may occur over different geographic areas. For example, the project effects on air quality would combine with the effects of projects in the entire air basin, whereas noise impacts would primarily be localized to the surrounding area. The geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project varies depending upon the type of environmental issue being considered. Section 15130(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect. Table

3.0-2 provides a summary of the different geographic areas used to evaluate cumulative impacts.

Table 3.0-2: Geographic Considerations in Cumulative Analysis Resource Area Geographic Area
Aesthetics Plan sites and adjacent parcels
Agriculture and Forestry San Mateo County
Air Quality San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Biological Resources Plan sites and adjacent parcels
Cultural Resources Plan sites and adjacent parcels (subsurface resources); Citywide (historic resources)
Energy Energy provider’s territory
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Planet-wide
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Plan sites and adjacent parcels Hydrology and Water Quality Belmont Creek watershed
Land Use and Planning Citywide
Noise and Vibration Plan sites and adjacent parcels
Transportation/Traffic Citywide
Tribal Cultural Resources Plan sites and adjacent parcels Utilities and Service Systems Citywide or utility service provider (e.g. SVCW)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 862
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 44 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.1 Aesthetics

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts. Under SB 743, a project’s aesthetic impacts will no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment if:
• The project is a residential or mixed-use residential project, or employment center project and
• The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area (TPA). 13 SB 743 also clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s aesthetics impacts outside of the CEQA process.

Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. Interstate 280 (I-280) from the San Mateo County line to State Route (SR) 17, which includes segments adjacent to San Carlos, is an eligible, but not officially designated, State Scenic Highway.14
13 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.” A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source:

California Legislative Information. “Chapter 2.7. Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects [21099- 21099.].” Accessed August 10, 2024.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13.&part=&chapter=2.7. &article=. 14 California Department of Transportation. “Scenic Highways.” Accessed August 10, 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 863
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 45 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Local
San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetic impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
LU-8.1 Require all development to feature high quality design that enhances the visual character of San Carlos.

LU-8.2 Ensure that new development is sensitive to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood.

LU-8.3 Encourage design features and amenities in new development and redevelopment, including, but not limited to:
a. Interconnected street layout.
b. Clustering of buildings.
c. Landscaping on each lot.
d. Visual buffers.
e. Facilitation of pedestrian activity.
f. Distinctiveness and variety in architectural design.

LU-8.4 Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions between buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential.

LU-8.5 Optimize architectural quality by encouraging the use of quality materials, particularly as accents and authentic detailing, such as balconies and window trims.

LU-8.9 Encourage the design of attractive outdoor pedestrian spaces that encourage impromptu public gathering places with features such as plazas, interior walkways and paseos, ornamental gates, trellises, lighting, trees and landscaping, seating and fountains.

LU-8.10 On all sides of buildings, require the incorporation of quality architectural design elements for all building façades and stepping back upper floors in order to reduce bulk and mass and to break up monotonous wall lines.

LU-8.11 Discourage abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between low-rise to midrise buildings should be achieved by using the low-rise buildings at the edge of the project site. Consider the relationship of buildings to the street, to one another and to adjacent structures and land uses, especially single-family residential.

LU-8.13 Require parking areas associated with development to be located and designed to minimize visual impact to the greatest extent feasible. This may include locating parking behind buildings street frontage, below grade, or screening through the use of natural landscaping.

LU-8.16 Require high quality signage through design, use of materials and colors compatible with and complementary to the architectural character of the building(s) and surrounding.

LU-9.9 Encourage the design of development to minimize the obstruction of significant views of the San Francisco Bay, the western hills, or other significant natural vistas to the greatest extent possible.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 864
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 46 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
EM-1.4 Protect and preserve the circadian cycle (the cycle of night and day) by limiting sources of light during nighttime hours.

CSS-4.6 Prohibit land uses and development which emit odors, particulates, light glare, or other environmentally sensitive contaminants from being located within proximity of schools, community centers, senior homes and other sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors shall be prohibited from locating in the proximity of environmentally sensitive contaminants.

City of San Carlos Municipal Code
City of San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.29 specifies the City’s design review process. Chapter

18.29.060 specifies that to obtain design review approval, projects must satisfy these criteria to the extent they apply:
• The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping will enhance the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.
• The project design is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. • Project details, materials, signage and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
• The project has been designed to be compatible with neighboring development by avoiding big differences in building scale and character between developments on adjoining lots in the same zoning district and providing a harmonious transition in scale and character between different districts.
• The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes a variety of building styles and designs with well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, roof lines, and building heights within a unifying context that encourages increased pedestrian activity and promotes compatibility among neighboring land uses within the same or different districts. • The design of streetscapes, including street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with the character of activity centers, commercial districts and nearby residential neighborhoods.
• The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such unified character.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 865
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 47 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• The project design preserves major public views and vistas from major public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas to stroll, benches to rest and enjoy views, and similar amenities.
• Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
• The proposed building design and landscaping supports public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site. • Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character and features of the buildings on site and help relate the building to the surrounding landscape.

Proposed planting materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting, infrastructure, utilities, and signage.

Existing Conditions
The City of San Carlos is divided into a series of six geographic areas, each reflecting the area’s unique character and distinctive land use pattern. The approximately 145-acre Plan area is located within the Harbor Industrial Area, roughly bound by Belmont Creek, U.S. 101, the western property lines of the residential parcels along Northwood Drive, the northeastern property lines of the residential parcels along Fairfield Drive, and the southeast property line of the PAMF and western edge at Old County Road.

The Plan is located in an urbanized setting in San Carlos and is developed with large manufacturing businesses, biotechnical and biomedical firms, and light and heavy industrial uses. Density within the Plan is greatest along Quarry Road, with limited spacing between buildings and small amounts of landscaping. The area opens up along Industrial Road, where landscaping and surface parking creates greater division among development, and building heights increase. Building heights in the Plan area range between one to four stories, with parcels on Industrial Road ranging from one to four stories, whereas parcels on all other roadways range from one to two stories. All roadways within the Plan consist of two lanes other than Industrial Road, which is a four-lane roadway.

Views along Industrial Road are partially blocked by development, although the wide road and parcel spacing allows for slight views of hillsides to the west. Partial hillside views are available heading west on Bragato Road and Taylor Way, and west of Glenn Way. Views west of Old County Road are blocked by the raised Caltrain tracks. The PAMF (301 Industrial Road), Delta Star (270 Industrial Road), and Natera/Curia Global/Lake Pharma (201 Industrial Road) developments contain the most visually prominent buildings in the Plan due to their height and mass.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 866
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 48 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Visual Character of the Surrounding Area
The area surrounding the Plan area is urbanized. The Greater San Carlos Neighborhood, which is located south of the Plan area, consists of single-family detached housing. Belmont Creek makes up the northern boundary of the Plan, north of which is the City of Belmont. The closest development to the Plan in the City of Belmont consists of one to two story industrial land uses along Harbor Boulevard. East of the Plan area is U.S. 101, which is adjacent to a mix of commercial and industrial land uses. West of the Plan area is El Camino Real (CA-82), Caltrain tracks, and residential and commercial land uses.

Scenic Vistas
Scenic vistas are defined in this document as natural landscapes that provide views of unique flora, geologic or other natural features that are generally free from urban intrusions. Typical scenic vistas include views of mountains and hills, large, uninterrupted open spaces and waterbodies. San Carlos has varied topography which ranges from land at sea level on the east to the hilly western portion of the City with elevations up to 900 feet on the west. The City does not have any formally recognized scenic vistas but residents enjoy and highly value views of San Francisco Bay on the eastern side of the city and the Santa Cruz Mountains west of the city. The Plan area is not visible from the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay nor does the Plan area provide views of the shoreline.

Scenic Highways and Roadways
There are three types of scenic roads near or in the City:
• State scenic highways,
• County scenic highways, and
• City scenic roads.

State Scenic Highways
There are no State scenic highways in San Carlos. I-280 is a state scenic highway located near the City, which is approximately 2.8 miles southwest of the project site. I-280 is not visible from the project site.

County Scenic Corridors
Edgewood Road and Cañada Road are two County-designated scenic corridors located near the City, which are approximately 2.0 miles south and 3.5 miles west of the project site, respectively. These County scenic highways are not visible from the project site.

Scenic Road
According to the General Plan, there are seven City-designated scenic roads in San Carlos:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 867
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 49 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Alameda de las Pulgas (approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the site), • San Carlos Avenue (approximately 0.5 mile south of the site), • Brittan Avenue, which intersects with Industrial Road (approximately 1.0 mile south of the site),
• Club Drive (approximately 1.3 miles west),
• Crestview Drive (approximately 2.1 miles west),
• El Camino Real (approximately 300 feet west), and
• Holly Street, which intersects with Industrial Road (approximately 500 feet south).

Views of the Plan area from the City-designated scenic roads are limited.

Light and Glare
The project is in a developed urban area. Sources of light and glare are abundant in the urban environment of the project area, including, but not limited to, streetlights, parking lot lights, security lights, vehicular headlights, internal building lights, and reflective building surfaces and windows.

Location within a Transit Priority Area
Pursuant to SB 743, “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” The Plan is a mixed-use residential, industrial and employment center project in an infill location. As mapped on Figure 4-1 of the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR as well as Figure 12 of Appendix G of this EIR, all parcels within the Plan area are within a TPA, as parcels within the Plan area are located within one-half mile of an existing, major transit stop.

3.1.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on aesthetics, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?15 If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
15 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 868
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 50 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
Pursuant to SB 743, “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” The Plan is a mixed-use residential, industrial and employment center project in an infill location within a TPA. As a result, pursuant to SB 743, buildout of the Plan would have a less than significant aesthetic impacts. The following discussion is for informational purposes only. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As mentioned in Section 3.1.1.2, there are no designated scenic vistas within the Plan area or the City. The Plan area and surrounding areas are relatively flat and views are limited. Views along Industrial Road are partially blocked by development, although the wide road and parcel spacing allow for slight views of hillsides to the west. Partial hillside views are available heading west on Bragato Road and Taylor Way, and west of Glenn Way. Views west of Old County Road are blocked by the raised Caltrain tracks. While buildout of the Plan could result in the development of buildings of up to 155 feet in height (includes the maximum height bonus) and would block views from existing adjacent developments, private views are not protected scenic resources under CEQA. As a result, the Plan would not result in a substantial impact on any scenic vistas or resources. (Less than Significant Impact)
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no State scenic highways in San Carlos. I-280 is a state scenic highway located near the City, which is approximately 2.8 miles southwest of the Plan. No portion of the Plan is visible from I280. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (No Impact)
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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?
The Plan area as well as the surrounding area are urbanized.

The Plan would create new zoning districts and corresponding design requirements that would apply to the parcels located within the Plan area. As shown on Figure 2.4-2, portions of the Plan would be reclassified to Mixed-Use, 75-90 du/acre Zoning District. The Mixed-Use, 75-90 du/acre Zoning District would permit both commercial and multi-family residential uses at residential densities of 75-90 dwellings units per acre. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would change the visual conditions of the Plan area by introducing new residential buildings to the Plan area while

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 869
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 51 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
also allowing up to 4,508,000 additional square feet of non-residential land uses. The Plan would also increase open space and create and enhance circulation connections.

Development within the Plan area would be subject to the design review and objective design standards compliance review process required by Section 18.29 of the Zoning Code, which requires design review for projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or alteration. This review process ensures that all future redevelopment projects under the Plan would be evaluated for their compatibility with their surroundings, harmonious transitions in scale and character between different land uses, safety, integration of natural features, appropriate construction materials, and other aspects. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with applicable regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant Impact) d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As discussed under Section 3.1.1.2, existing sources of light and glare are abundant in the urban environment of the Plan, including, but not limited to, streetlights, parking lot lights, security lights, vehicular headlights, internal building lights, and reflective building surfaces and windows.

Implementation of the Plan would introduce a new street network and new uses that would create additional sources of light in the Plan area, including additional streetlights, exterior and interior lighting, and vehicle headlights. In addition, the proposed 10-foot-wide trail along Belmont Creek would include pedestrian-scale lighting. Implementation of the Plan could result in spillover lighting, skyglow or nighttime illumination, or glare. However, all future development in the Plan would be subject to the lighting standards in SCMC 18.15.070, which exist to minimize outdoor artificial light and reduced illumination on adjacent lots.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would not cause a substantial new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Plan with compliance with General Plan goals, policies, and actions, such as those described in Section 3.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework.

City Zoning Code Section 18.29 requires design review before issuance of a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or alterations. This review process investigates the proposed project’s effects on light and glare and would not allow the issuance of a building permit for a project that would adversely affect light and glare conditions in San Carlos. Adherence with the City’s Municipal Code and the Design Review process would ensure that new sources of light and glare do not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 870
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 52 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative aesthetics impact?
The geographic area for cumulative aesthetic impacts is limited to the Plan area and adjacent parcels in which the plan area would be visible. Buildout of the Plan would result in the construction of buildings up to 155 feet height, which would be visible from the existing land uses and surrounding roadways. As mentioned previously, the Plan area is not located along or visible from a state-designated scenic highway or a scenic vista. Although full buildout of the Plan would alter the visual character of the area, future development proposed under the Plan would be compatible with the existing land uses in the area due to compliance with the design review findings, including standards to prevent light and glare impacts. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would not cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact with compliance with General Plan goals, policies, and actions, such as those described in Section 3.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework. For these reasons, the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative aesthetic impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 871
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 53 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is identified as Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on-site or in the project area.16
California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses.17 Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources.18 Programs such as CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program are used to identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas could be affected are located on or adjacent to a project site.19
16 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed July 26, 2024. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 17 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. 18 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).
19 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed July 26, 2024. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 872
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 54 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Existing Conditions
The Plan area is designated as Urban and Built-Up Urban, which is defined as land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10 acre-parcel.20
The Plan does not include forest land or timberland.

The project area is currently developed with buildings and parking facilities. The project area and adjacent uses are not used or zoned for agriculture, forestry, or timberland and the Plan area (refer to Figure 2.2-1) is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract.

3.2.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on agriculture and forestry resources, would the project:
1) 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? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3) 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))?
4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5) 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?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? As discussed above in Section 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan area is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and none of the sites within the Plan are designated as farmland pursuant to FMMP maps. Therefore, implementation of future development under the Plan would not convert Prime 20 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 873
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 55 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. (No Impact)
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
As discussed above in Section 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions, none of the sites within the Plan are zoned for agricultural use. None of the sites within the Plan are subject to a Williamson Act contract.21 Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact) c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions, the sites within the Plan do not meet the definition of forest land or timberland, nor are the sites used or zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause the rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (No Impact)
d) Would the project result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The sites within and adjacent to the Plan are not designated as forest land, as discussed in Section

3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions. The Plan, therefore, would not result in a loss of forest land or a conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact) e) Would the project 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?
As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions and under checklist questions a) through d) above, the sites within and adjacent to the Plan are not designated for agricultural use or forest land. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural or non-forest use. (No Impact) 21 San Mateo County. San Mateo County GIS open data – Williamson Act Parcels. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://data-smcmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/williamson-act-parcels/explore

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 874
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 56 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant agricultural and forestry resources impact?
The geographic area for cumulative agricultural and forestry impacts is San Mateo County. The implementation of the Plan would not impact agricultural, forestry, and/or timberland (see discussions under checklist questions a) through e) above); therefore, implementation of the Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to those resources. (No Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 875
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 57 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.3 Air Quality
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated March 28, 2025. This report is included as Appendix B to this EIR.

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are pollutants that have established federal or State standards for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Pursuant with the federal and State Clean Air Acts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established and enforced the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS address the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micros or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. The CAAQS also includes visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) include airborne chemicals that are known to have short- and longterm adverse health effects. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Unlike criteria air pollutants, which have a regional impact, TACs are highly localized and regulated at the individual emissions source level.

DPM is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. DPM is comprised of diesel exhaust which is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (i.e., areas most susceptible to injury).22 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, are also TACs identified by the CARB.

An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and TACs, as well as their associated health effects, is provided in Table 3.3-1.
22 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed September 3, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 876
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 58 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.3-1: Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants Description and Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3) O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant that is the result of a photochemical (sunlight) reaction between reactive
organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, power plants, industrial
boilers, refineries, and chemical plants are the common sources for this reaction. High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of ROG and NOX. These precursor or primary pollutants react under certain meteorological
conditions to form high O3 levels. Commons sources of
ROG and NOx are vehicles, industrial plants, and consumer products.
• Aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function
impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
NO2 is a reactive gas that combines with nitric oxide (NO) to form NOx. NO2 is the byproduct of fuel combustion,
with common sources of NO2 being emissions from cars,
trucks, buses, power plants, and off-road equipment.

Other sources of NO2 include high temperature stationary combustion and atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory
illness
• Reduced visibility
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless, odorless, and toxic gas that is the
product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing
substances (e.g., when something is burned). Common
outdoor sources of CO include mobile vehicles (passenger cars and trucks) and machinery that burn fossil fuels.
• Interferes with oxygen
delivery to the body’s organ
due to binding with the
hemoglobin in the blood
• Fatigue, headaches,
confusion, and dizziness
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
and Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Particulate Matter (PM) is any material that is emitted as liquid or solid particles or a gaseous material, such as dust, soot, aerosols, and fumes. PM10 and PM2.5 are both small enough particulates to be inhaled into the human lungs, and PM2.5 is small enough to deposit into the lungs, which poses an increased health risk compared to PM10. Typical sources of PM include stationary combustion of solid
fuels, construction activities, vehicles, industrial processes, and atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function,
especially in children
• Aggravation of respiratory
and cardiorespiratory
diseases
• Increased cough and chest
discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
SO2 is a pungent and colorless gaseous pollutant. SO2 is part of the sulfur oxides (SOx) group and is the pollutant of greatest concern in the SOx group. SOx can react with
other compounds in the atmosphere to form small
particles. These particles contribute to pollution. SO2 is primarily formed from fossil fuel combustion at power
plants and other industrial facilities. Sources of SO2
include motor vehicles, locomotives, ships, and off-road diesel equipment that are operated with fuels that contain high levels of sulfur. Industrial processes, such as natural gas and petroleum extraction, oil refining, and metal
processing.
• Aggravation of respiratory
illness
• Respiratory irritation such
as wheezing, shortness of
breath and chest tightness
• Increased incidence of
pulmonary symptoms and
disease, decreased
pulmonary function

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 877
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 59 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Pollutants Description and Sources Primary Effects
Lead Lead is a naturally occurring element that can be found in all parts of the environment including the air, soil, and water. As an air pollutant, lead is present in small
particles. The most common historic source of lead
exposure was the past use of leaded gasoline in motor
vehicles. The exhaust resulting from use of leaded
gasoline would release lead emissions into the air. Now, major sources of lead in the air are from ore and metals processing plants and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead
smelters.
• Adversely affect the
nervous system, kidney
function, immune system,
reproductive and
developmental systems and
the cardiovascular system
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
TACs include certain air pollutants known to increase the risk of cancer and/or a range of other serious health
effects. Sources of TAC include, but are not limited to, cars and trucks, especially diesel-fueled; industrial sources, such as chrome platers; dry cleaners and service stations; and building materials and products.
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or
skin irritation
• Neurological and
reproductive disorders
Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools.

Worker Receptors
In addition to the sensitive receptors mentioned above, the Bay Area Air District (formerly the Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD]) considers worker receptors when reviewing impacts from air pollution and TACs. Worker receptors are adults (16 years and older) that work indoors and/or outdoors at off-site locations zoned for commercial and industrial uses. Typical developments that include worker receptors are offices, retail shops, manufacturing uses, light industrial uses, or heavy industrial uses.23
23 Bay Area Air District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E: Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Page E-14.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 878
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 60 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the EPA is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants discussed previously; PM, O3, CO, SO2, NO2, and lead.24
CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, this plan involves the application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM and other pollutants. Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB-adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment, including off-road equipment, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air District is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the project area. Regional air quality management districts, such as the Bay Area Air District, must prepare air quality plans specifying how federal and state air quality standards will be met. The Bay Area Air District’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan focuses on the following two related Bay Area Air District goals and how to achieve them:
• Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all state and national air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TAC; and
24 NOx is the group of nitrogen compounds (NO2 and nitric oxide [NO]) that typically represents NO2 emissions because NO2 emissions contribute the majority of NOx exhaust emissions emitted from fuel combustion.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 879
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 61 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.25 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The Bay Area Air District 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.

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by the Bay Area Air District within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, the Bay Area Air District rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. The latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are the 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted on April 20, 2023, by the Bay Area Air District’s Board of Directors.

San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating air quality impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
EM-6.1 Support and comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, State and federal standards and policies that improve air quality in the Bay Area.

EM-6.2 Support and encourage commercial uses to adopt environmentally friendly technologies and reduce the release of pollutants.

EM-6.3 Support the reduction of emissions of particulates from wood burning appliances, construction activity, automobiles, trucks and other sources.

EM-6.4 Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines that establish minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors.

Exceptions may be made for projects that do not meet the distance requirements, but can be determined compatible with adjacent uses through a project-specific study that determines potential health risk. Mitigation measures shall be required to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.

EM-6.5 Consider potential impacts from land uses that may emit pollution and/or odors when locating air pollution sources near sensitive receptors. Air pollution sources could include freeways, industrial uses, hazardous materials storage, waste disposal/transfer stations and other similar uses.

EM-6.6 BAAQMD recommended measures to reduce PM10 and exhaust emissions associated with construction shall be applied to new development in San Carlos.

LU-9.5 Require buffering, screening, transitional standards, or other measures for new and expanded multi-family residential, mixed use, and/or commercial/industrial developments adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts.
25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. Page 12.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 880
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 62 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
City of San Carlos Municipal Code
The SCMC is the primary document that regulates the policies and practices of the City. The SCMC contains the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Building and Construction Code, and other titles that are important in implementing the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to air quality as follows:
• Chapter 8.06, Smoking Control, restricts and regulates smoking in public places in order to protect the public health and welfare against the proven health hazards and harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
• Chapter 8.08, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris, requires the recycling of construction and demolition debris to help the City reduce landfill waste, foster resource conservation, and help the City meet and exceed a diversion rate of 50 percent per AB 939.
• Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, list requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, state organic recycling laws, and Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016.
• Chapter 18.18, Landscaping, preserves, maintains, and provides regulations of trees for the health and welfare of the City; provide habitat; counteract the pollutants in the air; and maintain the climatic balance.
• Chapter 18.21, Performance Standards, establishes permissible limits and permits objective measurement of nuisance, hazards, and objectionable conditions to ensure protection of the community. Section 18.21.090, Air Contaminants, specify that sources of air pollution shall comply with all rules established by the Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40), CARB, and the Air District. • Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management, aims to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new development and promotion of more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities.

City of San Carlos 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan Adopted in September 2021, the City of San Carlos 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) is a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and streamline the environmental review of GHG emissions of future development projects in the City. This CMAP is an update of the 2009 Climate Action Plan, providing updated information, an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies, climate adaptation strategies, and a planning horizon out to 2050.

The CMAP allows City decision-makers, staff, and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions and identifies future strategies that, if implemented, will allow the community to achieve its emissions-reductions targets. In conjunction with existing local and state programs, these CMAP strategies provide a flexible path to reduce the community’s annual GHG emissions to 107,920 MTCO2e by 2030 (49 percent below 2005 levels) and 36,060 MTCO2e by 2050 (83 percent below 2005 levels). The City’s GHG reduction targets are to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, at a minimum. To

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 881
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 63 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
ensure that the implementation process is efficient, the CMAP includes a work plan that identifies responsible departments, partners, time frames, and relative costs associated with each strategy.

Existing Conditions
The San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) Air Basin is designated a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and for the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.26, The Bay Area is
designated as an attainment area for both the NAAQS and CAAQS for CO, SO2, and NO2. As the regional air district, the Bay Area Air District is responsible for attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS for these pollutants. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, the Bay Area Air District has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors that apply to both construction period and operational period impacts. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area Air District attempts to reduce O3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys where temperatures are higher, there is less wind circulation, and sources of the precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) are prominent. In the Bay Area, most particulate matter is generated from the following activities: combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agriculture, and motor vehicles. Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Plan are located in the single-family homes adjacent to the south of the Plan. There are additional sensitive receptors located to the west and northwest of the Plan area.

3.3.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on air quality, would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Thresholds of Significance
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and 26 Bay Area Air District. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Last Updated January 5, 2017. https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/7_BAAQMD_2017_AQStandardsandAttainmentStatus.pdf

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 882
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 64 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of San Carlos has considered the air quality thresholds updated by the Bay Area Air District in April 2023 and regards these thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5.

The applicable Bay Area Air District CEQA thresholds for a plan-level document are summarized in Table 3.3-2. There are no construction thresholds for a program-level document since construction activity and intensity are determined on a project-by-project basis.

Table 3.3-2: Bay Area Air District Plan-Level Air Quality Significance Thresholds Impact Threshold of Significance
Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions 1. Consistency with Current Air Quality Plan control measures, and

2. Projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle
trip increase is less than or equal to projected
population increase
Health Risks Land use diagram identifies special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs and
PM2.5, including special overlay zones of at least 500
feet (or Air District-approved modeled distance) on
each side of all freeways and high-volume roadways,
and plan identifies goals, policies, and objectives to
minimize potentially adverse impacts. For this analysis – overlay zones are based on potential for sources to
result in the following impacts:

1. Excess cancer risk >10.0 chances per million

2. Annual PM2.5 Concentration > 0.3 µg/m3*

3. Hazard Index >1.0
Odors Identify the location, and include policies to reduce the impacts, of existing or planned sources of odors
* A concentration of 1 µg/m3 means that one cubic meter of air contains one microgram (10-6 grams) of pollutant.

For informational purposes only, the Bay Area Air District project-level thresholds that would be applied to future individual projects are shown in Table 3.3-3. Table 3.3-4 below lists the Bay Area Air District health risk and hazards thresholds for single-source and cumulative-sources.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 883
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 65 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.3-3: Bay Area Air District Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds* Operation Thresholds Operation Thresholds Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG and NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 parts per million (ppm) (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour)
Fugitive Dust Dust Control Measures/Best
Management Practices Not Applicable
* The Air District recommends for construction projects that require less than 1 year to complete, lead agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts would occur rather than over the full year. Additionally, for phased projects that results in concurrent construction and operational emissions.

Construction-related exhaust emissions should be combined with operational emissions for all phases where construction and operations overlap.

Source: Bay Area Air District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023. Pages 3-5 and 3-6.

Table 3.3-4: Bay Area Air District Health Risks and Hazards Thresholds Health Risk Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources
Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million
Non-Cancer Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 μg/m3 (average) Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Thresholds are applicable to construction and operational activities.

Source: Bay Area Air District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023. Pages 3-5 and 3-6.

Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Plan-Level Consistency
The Bay Area Air District thresholds of significance are:
• Consistency with Current Air Quality Plan control measures, and • Projected VMT or vehicle trip increase is less than or equal to projected population increase.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 884
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 66 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Consistency with 2017 CAP Control Measures
Table 3.3-5 lists relevant CAP policies and indicates consistency with the policies.

Table 3.3-5: 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Control Measures Project Consistency with Measure Intent Transportation Measures
TR1 – Clean Air Teleworking Initiative: Develop
teleworking best practices for employers and
develop additional strategies to promote
telecommuting. Promote teleworking on Spare the
Air Days.

As described in Section 2.3.6 of this EIR, all new
development in the Plan would be subject to TDM
requirements, with the exception of 100 percent
affordable housing developments, housing
developments below 25 units, and non-residential
developments below 10,000 square feet. Consistent
with the City/County Association of Governments of
San Mateo County (C/CAG’s) TDM Policy, it is assumed
that all new development, with the above noted
exceptions, would achieve a 25 percent vehicle trip
reduction. Therefore, the Plan would be consistent
with this measure.

TR2 – Trip Reduction Programs: Implement the
regional Commuter Benefits Program (Rule 14-1)
that requires employers with 50 or more Bay Area
employees to provide commuter benefits.

Encourage trip reduction policies and programs in
local plans, e.g., general and specific plans while
providing grants to support trip reduction efforts.

Encourage local governments to require mitigation
of vehicle travel as part of new development
approval, to adopt transit benefits ordinances in
order to reduce transit costs to employees, and to
develop innovative ways to encourage rideshare,
transit, cycling, and walking for work trips. Fund
various employer-based trip reduction programs.

TR 5: Transit Efficiency and Use: Improve transit
efficiency and make transit more convenient for
riders through continued operation of 511 Transit,
full implementation of Clipper fare payment
system and the Transit Hub Signage Program.

Portions of the Plan are located within 0.5 mile of a
major transit stop (San Carlos and Belmont Caltrain
stations) and is entirely within a TPA. There is no
direct transit service within the Plan area; however,
the Plan would facilitate improvements to the bicycle
and pedestrian network. These improvements would
encourage connections to nearby rail and bus transit.

Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with this
measure.

TR8 – Ridesharing, Last-Mile Connection: Promote
carpooling and vanpooling by providing funding to
continue regional and local ridesharing programs,
and support the expansion of carsharing programs.

Provide incentive funding for pilot projects to
evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
innovative ridesharing and other last-mile solution
trip reduction strategies. Encourage employers to
promote ridesharing and carsharing to their
employees.

The purpose of 2017 CAP control measure TR8 is to
reduce vehicle trips. As discussed in Section 2.3.6,
future development within the Plan, with noted
exceptions, would be required to prepare TDM plans
with measures (such as carpooling and vanpooling)
that would achieve a 25 percent reduction in vehicle
trips. Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with
this measure.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 885
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 67 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Control Measures Project Consistency with Measure Intent TR9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities:

Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific
plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle
parking facilities.

The Plan would be consistent with the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan. As summarized above in Table

2.3-3 and shown in Figure 2.3-12, the Plan would
include pedestrian and bicycle improvements to
create opportunities for a variety of travel options.

Industrial Road, Old County Road, and Taylor Way
would have two-way protected bike lanes. The Plan
includes three pedestrian paseos, one along the new
north-south street connecting Bragato Road to Quarry
Road, and two along Bragato Road to facilitate more
connectivity and accessibility in the district. A
proposed trail along Belmont Creek provides an
additional walking route to connect Old County Road
to Industrial Road and fosters greater access with the
natural features. Therefore, the Plan would be
consistent with this measure.

TR13 – Parking Policies: Encourage parking policies
and programs in local plans, e.g., reduce minimum
parking requirements; limit the supply of off-street
parking in transit-oriented areas; unbundle the
price of parking spaces; support implementation of
demand-based pricing in high-traffic areas.

As described in Section 2.3.3 of this EIR, all new
development in the Plan would be compliance with
the MTC TOC policy, which does not allow for
minimum parking requirements. The Plan would
utilize maximum parking requirements, as
summarized in Table 2.4-4. Therefore, the Plan would
be consistent with this measure.

Energy Measures
EN2 – Decrease Electricity Demand: Work with
local governments to adopt additional energyefficiency policies and programs. Support local government energy efficiency program via best
practices, model ordinances, and technical support.

Work with partners to develop messaging to
decrease electricity demand during peak times.

All new development facilitated by the Plan would be
required to demonstrate compliance with the
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen standards in effect at the time the
individual development applications are submitted
and can therefore be expected to be more energyefficient than the use being replaced, resulting in reductions in building electricity consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when
compared to existing development. Therefore, the
Plan would be consistent with this measure.

Building Measures
BL1 – Green Buildings: Collaborate with partners
such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related
improvements and opportunities for onsite
renewable energy systems in school districts;
investigate funding strategies to implement
upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local
implementation of the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24) statewide
building energy code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with
The purpose of 2017 CAP control measure BL1 is to
reduce GHG emissions associated with energy
consumption by buildings. As discussed above, future
development would reduce electricity demand
through compliance with CALGreen and building
design. As documented in Section 3.6 Energy under
checklist question a), buildout of the Plan would result in a net increase in natural gas consumption. While
the City currently has a reach code requiring allelectric building designs for most new projects (SCMC

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 886
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 68 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Control Measures Project Consistency with Measure Intent Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG’s)
BayREN program to make additional funding
available for energy-related projects in the
buildings sector. Engage with additional partners to
target reducing emissions from specific types of
buildings.

Section 4.106.5), federal law preempts a local
jurisdiction from banning the use of natural gas, and it cannot be guaranteed that every individual
development project facilitated by the proposed
project would be subject to this requirement to be allelectric. All future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current California
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen
and would result in reductions in heating fuel (i.e.,
natural gas or propane) consumption compared to
existing buildings on sites within the Plan area that
would undergo redevelopment. Therefore, the Plan
would be consistent with this measure.

BL2 – Decarbonize Buildings: Explore potential Air
District rulemaking options regarding the sale of
fossil fuel-based space and water heating systems
for both residential and commercial use. Explore
incentives for property owners to replace their
furnace, water heater or natural-gas powered
appliances with zero-carbon alternatives. Update
Air District guidance documents to recommend
that commercial and multi-family developments
install ground source heat pumps and solar hot
water heaters.

As documented in Section 3.6 Energy under checklist
question a), buildout of the Plan would result in a net increase in natural gas consumption. While the City
currently has a reach code requiring all-electric
building designs for most new projects (SCMC Section

4.106.5), federal law preempts a local jurisdiction from banning the use of natural gas, and it cannot be
guaranteed that every individual development project
facilitated by the proposed project would be subject
to this requirement to be all-electric. All future
development would be required to demonstrate
compliance with the current California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen and would result in
reductions in heating fuel (i.e., natural gas or propane) consumption compared to existing buildings on sites
within the Plan area that would undergo
redevelopment. Therefore, the Plan would be
consistent with this measure.

BL4 – Urban Heat Island Mitigation: Develop and
urge adoption of a model ordinance for “cool
parking” that promotes the use of cool surface
treatments for new parking facilities, as well
existing surface lots undergoing resurfacing.

Develop and promote adoption of model building
code requirements for new construction or
reroofing/roofing upgrades for commercial and
residential multi-family housing.

All new developments accommodated under the Plan
would be built to comply with the latest Building
Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards.

Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with this
measure.

Natural and Working Lands Measures
NW2 – Urban Tree Planting: Develop or identify an
existing model municipal tree planting ordinance
and encourage local governments to adopt such an
ordinance. Include tree planting recommendations,
All future development would be required to adhere
to Section 18.18.070 of the SCMC, which defines
significant, protected, and heritage trees and sets
forth protection requirements. As discussed in Section

2.3.5 of this EIR, the Plan would require 15 percent
open space dedication for all new development

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 887
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 69 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Control Measures Project Consistency with Measure Intent BAAQMD’s technical guidance, best management
practices for local plans, and CEQA review.
greater than one acre. Further, all new residential
development would be required to comply with SCMC
Section 17.32.030 and provide parkland or pay in-lieu
fees to the City to dedicate parkland elsewhere.

Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with this
measure.

Waste Management Measures
WA4 – Recycling and Waste Reduction: Develop or
identify and promote model ordinances on
community-wide zero waste goals and recycling of
construction and demolition materials in
commercial and public construction projects.

All new developments under the Plan would be
required to comply with CALGreen Building Code,
which requires that at least 65 percent of
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste
from residential and nonresidential construction
operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. New
development and redevelopment would also need to
comply with the requirements of AB 341 that
mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily
residential land uses. Therefore, the Plan would be
consistent with this measure.

Water Measures
WR2 – Support Water Conservation: Develop a list
of best practices that reduce water consumption
and increase on-site water recycling in new and
existing buildings; incorporate into local planning
guidance.

Section 18.18.080 Water efficient landscaping and
irrigation of the SCMC requires that landscaping be
designed and plantings selected so that water use is
minimized. The estimated total water use of the
proposed landscaping on a site must not exceed the
maximum applied water allowance. Chapter 8.60.120,
Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
Requirements, describes the MWELO requirements
for anyone requiring a building or planning permit,
plan check, or landscape design review for new
construction with a landscape area greater than 500
square feet or rehabilitated existing landscape with a
total landscape area greater than 2,500 square feet.

Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with this
measure.

As documented in Table 3.3-5, future development under the Plan would comply with all applicable 2017 CAP control measures. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan.

Projected VMT or Vehicle Trip Increase Compared to Population Increase Pursuant to the plan-level thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant emissions and their precursors shown in Table 3.3-2, plans that would increase VMT at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase, are considered to have a significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant emissions impact. Table 3.3-6 below compares the increase in service population with the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 888
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 70 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
increase in daily trips (which are one of two factors in VMT, the other being average trip length) associated with buildout of the Plan.

Table 3.3-6: Daily Trip and Population Increase Comparison Scenario Service Population
(Employees)
Service Population
(Residents) Daily Trips
Existing Conditions 6,933 0 19,001
Plan 10,356 3,611 40,9421
Existing to be Removed (562) 0 (2,282)
Existing + Plan 16,727 3,611 57,661
Rate of Increase over
Existing (Percentage) 193 (employees + residents) 203
Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) – Transportation Analysis (FINAL). December 2024.

Notes:
1 The daily trips generated by the Plan assumes a 25 percent trip reduction applied per the TDM requirement.

As shown in Table 3.3-6, the number of daily trips in the Plan would increase by 203 percent whereas the population (employees plus residents) would increase by 193 percent. The rate of traffic growth would increase at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase.

Impact AIR-1: Buildout of the Plan would increase daily trips by 203 percent, and increase the service population by 193 percent. Since the rate of increase in population would be exceeded by the rate of increase in daily trips, the Plan would have a significant program-level criteria air pollutant emissions impact.

General Plan Policies to Reduce Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions The following General Plan goals and policies would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to these long-term, regional criteria air pollutant emissions:
• 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 the incorporation of Transportation Demand Measures in new development to reduce traffic impacts.
• Policy CSH-6.2: Support transit-oriented development with mixed, dense land use that reduces the need to travel and that is linked to good transit. The City shall work with local, regional and State representatives to encourage the support and funding of transit oriented development projects

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 889
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 71 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Policy EM-11.4: Provide an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfares that connects jobs and housing to other city destinations, as recommended in the San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
• Policy EM-11.6: Encourage employers to incentivize employee use of mass transit and alternative modes of transportation.
• Policy EM-11.9: Coordinate with major employers, neighboring municipalities, transit agencies and providers to enhance regional transit and shuttle service. • Policy EM-11.10: Evaluate and encourage new forms of mass transit. • Policy EM-11.11: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance that contains strategies to reduce vehicle trips. • Policy EM-11.12: Include in the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance a requirement that new office development over a certain size include showers and safe and secure bike racks to encourage employees to bicycle to work.

As discussed in Section 3.17 Transportation, the Plan is located in a TPA and therefore, future development projects would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact. Further, as described in Section 2.3.7 of this EIR, all new development in the Plan, with noted exceptions for 100 percent affordable housing, small housing developments, and small non-residential developments, would be subject to TDM requirements. Consistent with C/CAG’s TDM Policy, it is assumed that all new development, with noted exceptions, would achieve a minimum 25 percent vehicle trip reduction (this reduction is assumed in the 203 percent rate of trip growth disclosed above). However, large projects would be expected to achieve up to a 35 percent vehicle trip reduction. While the Plan includes measures to reduce trips, the Plan’s rate of traffic growth (assuming the minimum 25 percent trip reduction) would increase at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase. Given the programmatic nature of the Plan, there is no mitigation that would reduce this impact. Accordingly, buildout of the Plan would conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Project-Level Consistency
The Bay Area Air District project-level thresholds that would be applied to future individual projects are shown in Table 3.3-3.

Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Buildout of the Plan, which would occur over a span of 20 years, would consist of numerous construction projects that would occur at various times. Construction of future development under the Plan would result in temporary emissions from construction activities associated with subsequent development, including demolition, site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasolinepowered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 890
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 72 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site deposit mud on local streets, which is an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The Bay Area Air District recommends all projects include a “basic” set of best management practices (BMPs) to manage fugitive dust and considers impacts from dust (i.e., fugitive PM10 and PM2.5) to be less-than-significant if BMPs are implemented to reduce these emissions (refer to discussion under Fugitive Dust in checklist question c).

Construction exhaust emissions include those from equipment (i.e., off-road) and traffic (on-road vehicles and trucks). Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOX emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Architectural coatings and application of asphalt pavement are dominant sources of ROG emissions. Unless controlled, the combination of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from construction equipment and related traffic may pose a nuisance impact to nearby receptors or exceed acceptable levels for projects. In addition, NOX emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the Bay Area Air District NOX emission thresholds for projects (refer to Table 3.3-3).

Impact AIR-2: Future construction under the Plan, if uncontrolled, could result in temporary dust and diesel exhaust impact to nearby receptors or exceed acceptable levels for projects. In addition, NOx emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the Bay Area Air District NOx emission thresholds for projects.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that development projects would generate emissions that would have the potential to exceed the Bay Area Air District significance thresholds. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR requires the following mitigation measure for all future development.

General Plan Mitigation Measures
• Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., discretionary, nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with current BAAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require implementation of current BAAQMD Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 891
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 73 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Given specific construction details are not available at this time, future projects in the Plan would be required to complete supplemental environmental review with a construction criteria pollutant emissions analysis to identify impacts and include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable Bay Area Air District construction thresholds. Reductions in emissions can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:
• Construction equipment selection for low emissions (e.g., U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards); • Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Low-VOC paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of Bay Area Air District Enhanced Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

As noted in the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, while implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 has the potential to reduce construction emissions, potential future development projects (individually or cumulatively) could still exceed the Bay Area Air District significance thresholds for construction. Projects that would exceed the applicable thresholds even after implementation of AQ-2.1 would be required to prepare a Supplemental EIR to disclose this significant and unavoidable impact.

Operational Period Emissions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents and employees. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are typical ROG emissions from these types of land uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate net operational emissions from implementation of the Plan assuming full buildout in 2045 or later. Table 3.3-7 reports the predicted emissions from complete buildout of the Plan in terms of annual emissions in tons and average daily operational emissions, assuming 365 days of operation per year. Net emissions between the Plan and existing uses are also shown.

Table 3.3-7: Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Existing Annual Emissions in 2024
(tons/year)1 22.88 13.22 9.16 2.75
Existing Land Uses Annual Emissions in 2045
(tons/year) 20.31 9.29 9.10 2.69
Future Proposed Annual Emissions in 2045
(tons/year) 45.35 13.82 15.95 4.55
Existing to Be Removed in 2045
(tons/year) 3.05 1.29 1.22 0.36

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 892
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 74 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Plan (Existing + Project – Existing to Be
Removed) Annual Emissions in 2045
(tons/year) 62.61 21.82 23.83 6.88 t
Net Increase Over Existing (tons/year) 42.30 12.53 14.73 4.19 Bay Area Air District Project-Level
Thresholds (tons per year) 10 10 15 10
Average Daily Net Project Operational
Emissions (pounds per day)1 231.8 68.7 80.7 23.0
Bay Area Air District Project-Level
Thresholds
(pounds per day)
54 54 82 54
1 Assumes 365-day operation.

As shown in Table 3.3-7, annual and average daily emissions of ROG and NOx associated with operation of the Plan Area would exceed the Bay Area Air District project-level significance thresholds.

Impact AIR-3: Buildout of the Plan would result in annual and average daily emissions of ROG and NOx associated with operation of the Plan Area would exceed the Bay Area Air District project-level significance thresholds.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2 would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent practicable. However, due to the programmatic nature of the General Plan Reset EIR, the impact was found to be significant and unavoidable.

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

If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the District-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions to comply with applicable significance threshold standards during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 893
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 75 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
o Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
o Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs. o Expanding bikeway networks.
o Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
o Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
o Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards. o Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems. o Requiring all-electric buildings.
o Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-emission alternatives. o Implementing organics diversion programs.
o Expanding urban tree planting.

Future development projects under the Plan would be required to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval, consistent with General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2. Further, the Bay Area Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide project screening criteria and level sizes to determine if projects warrant modeling to evaluate their emissions. Projects that meet the screening criteria and are smaller than the screening sizes would be considered to have less-than-significant operational air pollutant emissions. Projects that are larger than the screening sizes would undergo further analysis to determine if emissions exceed the project-level thresholds as required by General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2. As discussed in Section 1.1 of this EIR, the EIR will allow for streamlined environmental review of subsequent development projects consistent with the Plan and analysis in this EIR.

As described above, the Plan is consistent with the applicable 2017 CAP control measures.

However, the Plan would increase trips (and, therefore, VMT) at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase and is therefore considered to have a significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant emissions impact. Future development under would implement General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 and AQ-2.2 to reduce construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions.

Nonetheless, the project would conflict with and obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) b) Would the project 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?
As stated in the Bay Area Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. If a project exceeds the identified significance

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 894
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 76 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

As discussed in Section 3.3.1.2, the Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3, PM2.5, and PM10 under the state and/or federal standards. High O3 levels are caused by cumulative emissions of ROG and NOX. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants would reduce O3 levels. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards, the Bay Area Air District has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. Pursuant to the plan-level thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant emissions and their precursors shown in Table 3.3-2, plans that are 1) inconsistent with the control measures provided in the 2017 CAP, or 2) would increase VMT or daily trips at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase, are considered to have a significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant emissions impact.

As documented under checklist question a), the Plan would be consistent with the 2017 CAP control measures. However, as shown in Table 3.3-6, the increase in daily trips, which corresponds to an increase in VMT, would exceed the increase in population. Accordingly, it is concluded that buildout of the Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions impact.

At a project level, future development under the Plan would implement General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1, which would require supplemental environmental review with a construction criteria pollutant emissions analysis to identify impacts and include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable Bay Area Air District construction thresholds. Future development projects under the Plan would be required to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval, consistent with General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2. As discussed above and stated in Section 1.1, the EIR will allow for streamlined environmental review of subsequent development projects consistent with the Plan and analysis in this EIR.

As summarized above, the implementation of the Plan would generate substantial operational criteria pollutants and is considered to have a significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant emissions impact. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Fugitive Dust
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Consistent with General Plan Policy EM-6.6, future development

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 895
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 77 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
projects would implement the following Bay Area Air District best management practices to reduce fugitive dust impacts to less than significant.

Bay Area Air District Best Management Practices:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Community Health Risk
Impacts related to increased health risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the Plan Area vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. The buildout of the Plan would introduce new temporary sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) as individual projects are constructed over the 20-year buildout of the Plan and long-term sources of TACs during operation (i.e., mobile and stationary sources).

Construction Health Risks
There are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Plan, with residences immediately south of the Plan area. Future construction activity under the Plan would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, the Plan would place sensitive receptors within the Plan area. Traffic generated by the Plan would consist of mostly light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles and the Plan may introduce new stationary sources such as emergency diesel-powered generators, which would produce TAC and air pollutant emissions in the area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 896
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 78 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. The construction exhaust emissions may pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as nearby residents. The primary health risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. Since specific construction plans and schedules for construction are not known, it is not possible at this stage of the planning process to quantify the impacts and determine the significance. Consistent with General Plan policy EM-6.4, future development projects would be required to prepare a project-specific study that determines potential health risk impacts and identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts to acceptable levels. • EM-6.4: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines that establish minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. Exceptions may be made for projects that do not meet the distance requirements, but can be determined compatible with adjacent uses through a projectspecific study that determines potential health risk. Mitigation measures shall be required to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.

Reductions in emissions can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:
• Construction equipment selection for low emissions (e.g., U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards); • Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Low-VOC paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of Bay Area Air District Enhanced Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

Implementation of General Plan Policy EM-6.5 would ensure that a health risk assessment is conducted at a project level for future development projects. If a future development project were to exceed applicable thresholds, General Plan Policy EM-6.5 requires that mitigation be incorporated to reduce to health risks to acceptable levels.

Operational Health Risks
Stationary Sources
Future development under the Plan would inevitably include stationary equipment such as backup power generators powered by diesel engines. Operation of diesel generators would be a source of TAC emissions in the form of DPM. These diesel engines would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) and require permits from the Bay Area Air District, since they would be equipped with engines larger than 50-HP. As part of the Bay Area Air District permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions would have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (BACT) and pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. A risk assessment would be prepared by the Bay Area Air District as part of the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 897
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 79 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
permitting process for stationary equipment. Depending on results, the Bay Area Air District would set limits for DPM emissions (e.g., more restricted engine operation periods). Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable Bay Area Air District regulations generally would not be considered to have a significant air quality health risk impact on their own.

Traffic
TAC emissions from traffic are anticipated to decrease with the implementation of the Plan for the following reasons:
• Vehicles, especially heavy-duty trucks, that meet newer diesel emissions standards will replace older vehicles ;
• Overall increase in fuel efficiency of automobiles and trucks; and • An increase in the percentage of vehicles that have zero emissions.

In addition to the reasons mentioned above, all new development under the Plan would be subject to TDM requirements (refer to Section 2.4.6). As discussed above, with noted exceptions, future development would achieve a minimum 25 percent vehicle trip reduction (with some larger projects achieving up to a 35 percent reduction). Nonetheless localized increases in traffic emissions of TACs may occur as the Plan is built out. These increases would likely be dependent on the specific types and sizes of land uses and the amount of truck traffic generated. Projects in the Production and Innovation and Industrial Professional zoning districts that include warehouses or distribution centers could have impacts with respect to health risks, depending on proximity of receptors.

CO Hotspots
CO hotspots (occurrences of localized high CO concentrations) could occur near busy congested intersections. Recognizing the relatively low CO concentrations experienced in the Bay Area, the Bay Area Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that a project would have a less-thansignificant impact if it would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Peak hour traffic volumes at intersections affected by implementation of the Plan area would be less than 10,000 vehicle trips per hour. Therefore, this impact would be lessthan-significant.

Combined Risks from Construction and Operation
Sources of TACs or PM2.5 emissions associated with buildout of planned development in the Plan Area have not been identified. The mix of land uses envisioned under the Plan could include sources such that significant exposures might occur. The impacts may be caused by a combination of construction activity, truck traffic, diesel-powered emergency generators, etc.

Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the Plan could result in uses that would result in significant exposures of TACs and PM2.5.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 898
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 80 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Health Risk Project Requirements
• Health Risk Assessments. Applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors or worker receptors as defined by the Bay Area Air District (e.g., residential, schools) shall prepare a site-specific construction and operational health risk assessment (HRA) prior to project approval. If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than Bay Area Air District project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary.

However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed the Bay Area Air District project level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed to further reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.

Implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measure A1-2.1, General Plan Policy EM-6.4 and Policy EM-6.6, and the above proposed Specific Plan Project Requirement, future development under the plan would reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions and construction-related fugitive dust emissions. The application of appropriate measures would reduce maximum cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and HI to below respective threshold levels.

Health Risks from Criteria Pollutant Emissions
In a 2018 decision (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno), the state Supreme Court determined CEQA requires that when a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would exceed applicable thresholds and contribute a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative regional criteria pollutant impact, the potential for the project’s emissions to affect human health in the air basin must be disclosed. State and federal ambient air quality standards are health-based standards, and exceedances of those standards result in continued unhealthy levels of air pollutants. As stated in the 2017 Bay Area Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the Bay Area Air District considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project has a less than significant impact for criteria pollutants, it is assumed to have no adverse health effect.

As discussed under checklist question b), the Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3, PM2.5, and PM10 under the state and/or federal standards. The increase in emissions of these pollutants associated with buildout of the Plan will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable ambient air quality standard. Because the Plan would increase the rate of traffic growth in excess of the rate of population growth and have emissions of ROG and NOx that would exceed emission-based significance thresholds, the Plan could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutant emissions that contribute to elevated ozone and PM10 concentrations that exceed ambient air quality standards.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 899
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 81 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Ozone is a powerful oxidant that is harmful to public health at high concentrations. Ozone, at high levels, can damage the tissues of the lungs and respiratory tract. High concentrations of ozone irritate the nose, throat, and respiratory system and constrict the airways. Ozone also can aggravate other respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, causing increased hospital admissions. Repeated exposure to high ozone levels can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and permanently damage lung tissue. Ozone can also have negative cardiovascular impacts, including chronic hardening of the arteries and acute triggering of heart attacks. Children are most at risk, as they tend to be active and outdoors in the summer, when ozone levels are highest. Seniors and people with respiratory illnesses are also especially sensitive to ozone’s effects. Even healthy adults, working or exercising outdoors during high ozone levels, can be affected. Ozone is not emitted directly from pollution sources. Instead, ozone is formed in the atmosphere through complex chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight between two types of precursor chemicals: hydrocarbons, often referred to as ROG and NOx. As air temperatures rise, the formation of ground level ozone increases at an accelerated pace. Ozone levels are usually highest on clear, hot, windless summer afternoons, especially in inland valleys that are downwind of pollution sources.

Ozone is a regional pollutant. Emissions of ROG and NOx throughout the Bay Area contribute to ozone formation. Because emissions in one part of the region can impact air quality miles downwind, efforts to reduce ozone levels focus on reducing emissions of ROG and NOx throughout the region. The relationship between ROG and NOx in ozone formation is complex; the ratio between the precursor pollutants influences how ozone forms. The Bay Area Air District’s ozone modeling indicates that the Bay Area is “ROG‐limited” for ozone formation. This means that reducing ROG emissions in the Bay Area will be more productive in reducing ozone, at least in the near term. However, modeling also suggests that large reductions in NOx emissions will be needed to achieve the ozone reductions required to attain the current health-based ozone standards. A certain amount of ozone formation occurs naturally, even in the absence of anthropogenic emissions of ROG and NOx.

The emissions from operation of the Plan are compared against regional emissions that lead to elevated concentrations of ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 in Table 3.3-8 below.

Table 3.3-8: Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin Emissions (in tons/day) Scenario ROG NOx
Bay Area Air Basin in 2024 90.28 66.92
Bay Area Air Basin in 20451 92.22 69.03
Unmitigated Project Operation (Increase
over existing)

0.12 tons/day
(42.3 tons/year)

0.03 tons/day
(42.3 tons/year)
% of Basin in 2040 0.13% 0.06%
1 CARB emission inventories are only reported out to year 2040, which is the closest year of analysis to proposed Plan operational year

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 900
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 82 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
By comparing the Plan’s emissions to regional emissions, one gets the sense of the magnitude of the project effects on regional air quality. Plan operational emissions in comparison to regional emissions are a small portion of the regional inventory (i.e., 0.06 to 0.13 percent) that the effect of the entire buildout of the Plan would not cause regional pollutant levels to measurably change. As a result, operation of the Plan would not measurably increase ozone. Therefore, the health effects associated with the project emissions would not be measurable. However, the emissions from the combined projects under the Plan (even assuming mitigation measure AIR-2.1 and 2.2) would increase emissions above the threshold of 54 pounds per average day for ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx), such that the emissions would be cumulatively considerable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Plan would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors. However, they would be localized and are not likely to adversely affect people off site by resulting in confirmed odor complaints. The Plan does not identify any uses that are typical sources of odors that could lead to objectionable odors that generate frequent odor complaints.

Odors are generally considered an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Land uses that have the potential to be sources of odors that generate complaints include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting operations, and food manufacturing facilities.

The Bay Area Air District publishes screening buffer distances for odor sources and sensitive receptors in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. There are no identified major sources of odors with the Plan area, nor are any proposed as part of the Plan. Uses in the Plan may include restaurants or auto repair shops that could have localized odors but not likely to result in frequent odor complaints. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-6.5 would ensure that potential odor impacts are addressed if new odor sources were sited near sensitive receptors. The Plan would, therefore, not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people off-site. (Less than Significant Impact)
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality impact?
The geographic area for cumulative air quality impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 901
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 83 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan
As discussed under checklist question a), build out of the Plan would conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan due to the Plan’s increase in daily trips at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase
Criteria Air Pollutants
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the Bay Area Air District considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As discussed under checklist questions a) and b), the increase in daily trips would exceed the increase in population as a result of the Plan and, therefore, the Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions.

Exposure of Sensitive Receptors
As discussed above under checklist question c), buildout of the Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutant emissions that contribute to elevated ozone and PM10 concentrations that exceed ambient air quality standards.

Odors
As discussed under checklist question d), odors associated with construction would be both temporary and localized, and therefore are not likely to affect people off-site. Uses in the Plan may include restaurants or auto repair shops that could have localized odors but not likely to result in frequent odor complaints. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-6.5 would ensure that potential odor impacts are addressed if new odor sources were sited near sensitive receptors. For these reasons, the Plan would not result in a cumulative considerable contribution to odor impacts.

Buildout of the Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to air quality. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact)

3.3.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included to provide information to the public regarding existing air quality conditions that would affect sensitive receptors in the Plan area.

A screening risk assessment was completed to analyze the impacts of existing TAC sources on new sensitive receptors allowed under the proposed Plan. Details of the modeling and health risk calculations are included in Appendix B.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 902
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 84 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The Plan would allow for future development of residential land uses and other uses that may contain sensitive receptors in proximity to arterial and collector roadways, highways and stationary sources of TACs. A 1,000-foot buffer was drawn around the Plan area to identify which TAC sources would affect sensitive receptors. Screening levels indicate that Plan sensitive receptors near highvolume roadways (roadways with 10,000 average daily trips or more) and stationary sources could be exposed to levels of TACs and or PM2.5 that could cause an unacceptable health risk. Figure 3.3-1 shows the Plan area and all TAC sources identified within the 1,000-foot buffer. Any development of sensitive receptors within affected areas that are near high volume roadways, stationary sources, or Caltrain would potentially expose sensitive receptors to significant exposure of cancer risk and/or PM2.5 concentrations.

Toxic Air Contaminant Project Requirements
• Projects developed within the Plan that are affected by air pollutant or toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources shall implement appropriate measures to minimize long-term TAC and annual PM2.5 exposure for new project occupants. Projects shall include either measures to reduce long-term exposure to TAC and PM2.5, as described below, or conduct a site-specific analysis prior to project approval to identify the level of exposure to TACs in terms of cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations. The analysis shall use procedures prescribed by the Bay Area Air District (e.g., the Bay Area Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) to predict these exposures. Where cancer risk exceeds 10 chances per million from any single source or 100 chances per million for cumulative sources (i.e., within 1,000 feet), where annual PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 μg/m3 from any single source or 0.8 μg/m3 for cumulative sources, and where HI exceed 1.0 from any single source or 10.0 for cumulative sources, the following measures shall be implemented:
o Design project developments to limit exposure from sources of TACs and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions.
o Install air filtration at units that have predicted cancer risk levels above 10 chances per million and PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3 µg/m3. Air filtration devices shall be rated Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher. Alternately, at the approval of the City, equivalent control technology may be used if it is shown by a qualified air quality consultant or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) engineer that it would reduce risk below significance thresholds. o As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC air filtration system shall be required. o Ensure that any lease agreements and other property documents (1) require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected units for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed.
o Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant or HVAC engineer submit verification confirming the installation of all necessary

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 903
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 85 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
measures to reduce cancer risk below 10 chances per million and PM2.5 concentrations below 0.3 µg/m3 from any source.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 904
Legend
Northeast Specific Plan Area Boundaries
1,000-Ō Influence Area
CalTrain
Industrial Road
Old County Road
Harbor Boulevard
Holly Street
StaƟonary Sources
StaƟonary Source Exceedences
ResidenƟal Mixed-Use Area
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 1,000-FOOT INFLUENCE AREA FIGURE 3.3-1 Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 86 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 87 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.4 Biological Resources
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Biological Resources Report completed by H.T.

Harvey & Associates dated May 12, 2025. This report is included as Appendix C to this EIR.

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special-status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations.

Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. This includes direct and indirect acts, except for harassment and habitat modification, which are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.

Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 906
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 88 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Regional and Local
City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating biological resource impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
EM-1.1 Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development project applications through the preparation of a biological resources assessment by a qualified biologist. Require such biological resource assessments as part of project approval for proposed development on sites that may support special-status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities, important wildlife corridors, riparian habitat, or regulated wetlands and waters EM-1.2 Ensure that development is consistent with all federal, State and regional regulations for habitat and species protections.

EM-1.3 Work to manage or eliminate nonnative invasive species from City-owned property and open space.

EM-1.4 Protect and preserve the circadian cycle (the cycle of night and day) by limiting sources of light during nighttime hours.

EM-1.5 Promote the preservation of native species, habitat and vegetation types and overall natural diversity.

Action EM-1.5 Require that new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.

EM-2.1 Preserve and enhance riparian areas.

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.

EM-2.3 Carefully evaluate the cumulative and compounding impacts of incremental creek encroachments.

EM-2.4 Restore culverted or buried channels to their natural state wherever feasible EM-2.5 Promote the establishment of native vegetation and the removal of non-native invasive plants in riparian areas.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 907
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 89 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
EM-2.6 Encourage property owners to replace fallen trees along waterways to maintain an upper canopy of vegetation. The species shall be as approved by the City arborist. Encourage use of trees native to the area.

EM-2.7 Retain Pulgas, Brittan, Cordilleras and Belmont Creek channels and their 100-year floodplains wherever possible as natural open space areas. These areas are to function as storm drainage facilities and as open space greenbelts to support natural habitat.

EM-3.1 Maintain and expand the urban canopy with special emphasis on protection of heritage trees.

EM-4.1 Retain existing public open space as open space.

EM-4.2 Support an open space system that is diverse in uses and opportunities and includes natural function/wildlife habitat as well as passive and appropriate active recreation.

PR-4.1 Preserve and protect sensitive species and habitats in City parks and open space, as identified by the Environmental Management Element of this Plan or state and federal guidelines.

PR-4.8 Replant, when necessary, with native species and/or climate-appropriate plants.

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

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

City of San Carlos Municipal Code
The SCMC is the primary document that regulates the policies and practices of the City. The SCMC contains the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Building and Construction Code, and other titles that are important in implementing the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to biological resources as follows:
• Chapter 18.14, Stream Development and Maintenance (SDM) Overlay District, regulates developments within 25 feet of top of bank of Cordilleras, Belmont, Brittan, and Pulgas Creeks within the City. All new development shall be set back a minimum twenty-five feet from the top of bank line or such other distance as specified by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Vegetation shall not be cut or removed except for normal maintenance, to facilitate drainage, prevent flooding, and to permit adequate flow of water.

Such cutting or removal of vegetation shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary, with special care to avoid removal of vegetation immediately adjacent to the banks of the stream.
• Section 18.18.070, Trees, outlines regulations that serve to promote the preservation and development of a healthy, diverse tree canopy in San Carlos. The section defines protected trees, which means any significant or heritage tree, any tree as part of a replacement requirement, an approved development permit or an approved landscaping plan. The provision of trees per square feet of lot coverage varies by district but is required to be a

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 908
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 90 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
minimum of 24 inches box size unless otherwise specified by the City Arborist and include species restrictions. The section also regulates the maintenance and preservation and prohibits the removal and/or pruning of protected trees.

Existing Conditions
The reconnaissance-level survey identified four habitat types/land uses within the Plan area:
developed/landscaped (143.2 acres), riparian (1.2 acres), freshwater marsh (0.6 acre), and aquatic riverine (0.4 acre); these habitats are described in detail below and shown on Figure 3.4-1.

Habitats
Developed/Landscaped
Vegetation
The Plan area is developed as an industrial area with aging industrial buildings as well as sidewalks, asphalt parking lots, a hospital, numerous paved roads, and associated ornamental landscape vegetation. The buildings are typically connected via sidewalks lined with ornamental landscaped mature trees such as eucalyptus. The hospital is surrounded by large fields composed entirely of a perennial grass that appears similar to clustered field sedge, which is a commonly planted native turf “grass”.

West of Quarry Road and perpendicular to Belmont Creek, a narrow strip of grasses characteristic of common California annual grassland species has established in an area of exposed bedrock in between two parking areas. This area contains nonnative brome grasses, Bermuda buttercup, and fennel, as well as one native coyote brush individual. Because this area is extremely limited in size and encompassed by developed areas, it is mapped as developed/landscaped rather than as a separate biotic habitat.

Wildlife
Wildlife species that are associated with the developed/landscaped habitat in the Plan area are adapted to high levels of human disturbance.

Mammals that occur in this area include introduced species such as the Virginia opossum, Norway rat, black rat and house mouse as well as common native species such as the striped skunk and raccoon. While native California ground squirrels are common in the region, no burrows of this species were observed during the 2023 reconnaissance-level survey. Nonnative eastern gray squirrels are common in the area. A few species of common, urban-adapted reptiles, such as the western fence lizard, are also common.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 909
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, March 2025.

Belmont Creek Belmont Creek
3600 360 180
Feet
Plan Area
Creek and Channel Corridors
Top of Bank
Ordinary High Water Mark
Edge of Riparian Canopy
Biotic Habitats
Developed/Landscaped (143.2 acres)
Riparian (1.2 acres)
Freshwater Marsh (0.6 acre)
Aquatic Riverine (0.4 acre)
Holly St
Inset 1
1 2
3 4
Inset 4
Inset 2
Inset 3
Inset 5
5 Inset 6
6 Inset 7
7 82
101
101
Harbor Blvd
Industrial Rd
Inset 8
8 0 180 360 720 Feet
BIOTIC HABITATS FIGURE 3.4-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 91 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 92 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
A variety of regionally common bird species will nest and forage in trees and landscape vegetation within developed portions of the Plan, including the native Anna’s hummingbird, California towhee, bushtit, dark-eyed junco, lesser goldfinch, American robin, northern mockingbird, and American crow as well as the nonnative Eurasian collared dove. Cavities in trees and buildings provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting birds such as the native chestnut-backed chickadee, Bewick’s wren, and nonnative European starling.

Eaves and ledges of buildings within the Plan area provide nesting sites for certain bird species that nest and roost on structures, such as the native black phoebe, house finch, and mourning dove, as well as the nonnative rock pigeon and house sparrow.

Raptors, including the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and Cooper’s hawk forage for prey within the Plan, and large trees such as eucalyptus and coast redwood provide potential nesting sites for these species. However, foraging resources are limited in the Plan due to the extensive hardscape, and only one to two pairs of raptors would be able to nest in the area at any given time.

No raptor nests were observed in the Plan area during the 2023 reconnaissance survey.

Buildings in the Plan, especially those that have not been occupied for long periods of time, provide suitable roosting habitat for common species of bats, such as the California myotis, Mexican freetailed bat, and big brown bat. No trees with cavities suitable for large bat colonies or crevices suitable for individual roosting bats were observed within the Plan area. Additionally, no evidence of active bat roosts was observed on building exteriors during the January 2023 survey.

Riparian
Vegetation
Riparian habitat is present along Belmont Creek and several drainage channels within the Plan, as shown on Figure 3.4-1. Along the creek, vegetation includes native tree species such as mature arroyo willows and red alder, native California blackberry as well as nonnative Himalayan blackberry and French broom.

Wildlife
Riparian habitats in California generally support diverse animal communities and contribute disproportionately to landscape-level species diversity, relative to surrounding upland habitats. In addition to providing breeding, foraging, and roosting habitat for a diverse array of animals, riparian communities provide movement corridors for some species, connecting a variety of habitats throughout a region. The ecological value of riparian habitats in the Plan is limited considerably by the narrow nature of the riparian corridors, paucity of native riparian habitat, and proximity to urban development and high human-use areas. Nonetheless, the riparian habitat along Belmont creek is of moderate value to wildlife, particularly those species that are tolerant of or associated with the adjacent developed areas. Riparian habitat that is present along the other channels in the Plan, which is much less dense and well-layered, provides relatively low-value habitat for wildlife species.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 911
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 93 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Urban-adapted mammals, such as the native raccoon and striped skunk, as well as the nonnative Virginia opossum, Norway rat, black rat, and feral cat occur within this habitat. Southern alligator lizards and western fence lizards will forage for insects in riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan.

Resident bird species that nest and forage in the riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan include many of the species that inhabit the surrounding developed/landscaped area (refer to discussion above). In addition, several resident species that are associated with aquatic and freshwater marsh vegetation will nest and forage in this habitat, such as the song sparrow and mallard.

A number of common migrant and wintering birds will rest and forage in the native riparian trees along the creek. These include migrant and wintering species that are found in surrounding developed/landscaped areas such as the yellow-rumped warbler, white-crowned sparrow, goldencrowned sparrow, and ruby-crowned kinglet. In addition, several migrants and wintering birds that are associated with riparian habitats, such as the yellow warbler, Pacific-slope flycatcher, and Lincoln’s sparrow, will use this habitat in low numbers.

Raptor species that occur in the surrounding areas such as the resident red-tailed hawk, redshouldered hawk, and Cooper’s hawk will forage for prey within the riparian habitats in the Plan; however, no trees within this habitat are large enough to provide suitable nesting sites for these species.

No cavities large enough to support colonies of roosting bats, or crevices small enough to support individual bats, were observed within any of the trees in the riparian habitat during the January 2023 site visit.

Freshwater Marsh
Vegetation
Freshwater marsh vegetation is located in sparse clusters at the toes of slopes and/or in the lowflow channels of Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan.27 These clusters consist almost entirely of cattail, but several limited areas of freshwater marsh vegetation are dominated by native species other than cattail such as bulrush, fat-hen, tall flatsedge, and resprouting swordleaf rush. The margins of these freshwater marsh areas are dominated by nonnative annual herbaceous weeds in the small ecotones where marsh vegetation transitions to upland vegetation on creek and channel slopes.
27 It is likely that the high storm flows that occurred during the January 2023 site visit obscured observation of freshwater marsh vegetation along Belmont Creek and in channels with high water levels; therefore, the extent of freshwater marsh vegetation in the Plan under more normal circumstances may be greater than what was mapped during the site visit.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 912
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 94 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Wildlife
Freshwater marshes often provide habitat for a distinctive suite of wetland-associated wildlife species. However, the small size and patchy distribution of the freshwater marsh vegetation in the Plan, coupled with disturbance from immediately adjacent developed areas, reduces the quality of this habitat for many wetland-associated wildlife species.

Certain marsh-nesting birds such as the red-winged blackbird and San Francisco common yellowthroat, a California species of special concern, are known to nest and forage in narrow marsh habitats such as those in the Plan; however, the marsh habitat in the Plan is of relatively low quality for these species due to its limited extent, patchy distribution, and high levels of immediately adjacent human disturbance. Marsh-associated bird species that inhabit smaller marshes and are tolerant of adjacent human disturbances, especially those that can use adjacent herbaceous riparian vegetation, will nest and forage in this habitat. These include the song sparrow and marsh wren. Common nonbreeding avian foragers in this habitat include wading birds such as the great egret, snowy egret, and green heron. Common amphibians such as the native Pacific tree frog and western toad as well as the nonnative bullfrog also breed and forage in freshwater marsh habitat in the Plan.

Aquatic Riverine
Vegetation
Aquatic riverine habitat in the Plan consists of the low-flow channels of Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels. Belmont Creek and the two larger unnamed channels in the Plan are perennial and contain water year-round, while the smaller channels that flow along the northeast and southeast peripheries of the Plan are intermittent. Aquatic plants may grow in these channels, but none were visible in January 2023 due to the opaque water.

Wildlife
Belmont Creek provides habitat for several species of fish such as the native threespine stickleback, as well as the nonnative rainwater killifish and western mosquitofish. Although the unnamed channels in the Plan are assumed to be connected to the San Francisco Bay downstream, this connection occurs through presumably long underground pipes that do not provide suitable habitat for fish, and high flow velocities through such pipes would make it very difficult for fish to swim upstream into the Plan during high flows.

The native Pacific tree frog, as well as nonnative species such as the bullfrog and crayfish, which can move between waterbodies over land, may be present and breeding within Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan. These areas also provide foraging habitat for waterbirds such as the mallard, as well as wading birds such as the great egret, snowy egret, and green heron. Birds that forage aerially for invertebrates such as the black phoebe, barn swallow, and cliff swallow, as well as bats that roost in nearby areas such as the California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat, will forage over aquatic habitats in the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 913
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 95 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Special-Status Species
Special-Status Plants
A search for special status plant and animal species in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) identified a total of 96 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the Plan area. All of these species were determined to be absent from the Plan for at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range within the Plan area; and/or (4) the species is considered extirpated from the Plan vicinity.

Special-Status Animals
A total of 12 special-status animals have the potential to occur on or immediately adjacent to the Plan area, as summarized in Table 3.4-1 below.

Table 3.4-1: Special-Status Animals with the Potential to Occur in the Plan Name Regulatory
Status
Occurrence in Plan
Monarch butterfly FPT No larval host plants were observed within the Plan during the January 2023 survey;
however, portions of the site are maintained
by mowing, and milkweeds, if present, would
not have been detectable. If milkweeds are
present, monarch butterflies may breed
within the Plan from March through October.

However, only small numbers of monarch
butterflies are expected to breed there, if
any. Small numbers of individuals may forage
throughout the Plan, especially during spring
and fall migration. However, the Plan does
not provide high-quality foraging habitat for
this species.

Northwestern pond turtle1 FPT, CSSC The nearest CNDDB record is 3.5 miles to the west near the Crystal Springs Reservoir.

Suitable foraging habitat for northwestern
pond turtles may be present within Belmont
Creek and along the unnamed channels in the
Plan. However, breeding populations of
western pond turtles have been extirpated
from most urbanized areas in the Plan region.

Nevertheless, it is possible that occasional
pond turtles from populations in freshwater
habitats upstream in Belmont Creek could
potentially disperse downstream to Belmont
Creek, and overland to other channels in the
Plan, although they would be expected to do
so in extremely low numbers, if at all.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 914
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 96 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Name Regulatory
Status
Occurrence in Plan
Tricolored blackbird1 ST Tricolored blackbirds typically nest in extensive stands of tall emergent herbaceous
vegetation in nontidal freshwater marshes
and ponds. However, the freshwater marsh
habitat in the Plan area is too small and
fragmented to support a nesting colony of
this species. This species has not been
recorded nesting on or near the Plan area.

However, tricolored blackbirds may forage
within the Plan area during the nonbreeding
season.

Central California roach CSSC Central California roach are not known to occur in Belmont Creek. However, this species
occurs widely, often in unshaded pools with
warm temperatures, and thus the possibility
that it can occur within the reach of Belmont
Creek within the Plan cannot be ruled out.

Sacramento hitch CSSC Sacramento hitch are not known to occur in Belmont Creek. However, this species occurs
widely and has a high tolerance of stream
conditions and water temperatures, and thus
the possibility that it can occur within the
reach of Belmont Creek within the Plan
cannot be ruled out.

Vaux’s swift1 CSSC (nesting) Vaux’s swifts are not known to nest in the San Carlos area. No snags or chimneys are present
on or immediately adjacent to the Plan to
provide suitable sites for nesting. Occasional
migrants forage aerially over the Plan.

Yellow warbler1 CSSC (nesting) Yellow warblers are common migrants in the Plan area and surrounding vicinity, and may
use the riparian habitat along Belmont Creek
and the unnamed channels for resting and
foraging during spring and fall migration.

However, they are not known or expected to
nest in the Plan due to the absence of suitably
extensive riparian habitat, and this species is
considered a species of special concern only
when nesting.

San Francisco common yellowthroat CSSC Common yellowthroats occur year-round in marshes of the Redwood Shores peninsula.

The marsh habitat and adjacent herbaceous
riparian vegetation along Belmont Creek and
the unnamed channels in the Plan provide
suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this
species. However, due to the limited extent
and patchy distribution of this habitat, as well
as high levels of human disturbance, only
small numbers of common yellowthroats

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 915
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 97 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Name Regulatory
Status
Occurrence in Plan
(e.g., one to two pairs) are expected to nest
within the Plan, if any.

Alameda song sparrow1 CSSC Suitable vegetation for nesting by Alameda song sparrows is present in salt marsh habitat
along Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan
area, north of U.S. Route 101. The location of
the interface between populations of the
Alameda song sparrow and the common race
that breeds in freshwater riparian habitats in
the region is not definitive due to difficulties
distinguishing these subspecies in the field.

However, the CSSC subspecies is known to
nest only in salt marsh habitats, which are
absent from the Plan.

Bryant’s savannah sparrow1 CSSC The marsh and ruderal habitats along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in
the Plan area do not provide suitable nesting
habitat for Bryant’s savannah sparrows
because these areas are nontidal and the
vegetation along the creek and channels is
too narrow in extent to support nesting by
this species. However, individuals may nest in
suitable pickleweed dominated marsh habitat
downstream of the Plan along Belmont Creek
and Belmont Slough. During the nonbreeding
season, Bryant’s savannah sparrows may
forage in open habitats throughout the Plan
area.

Palid bat CSSC Historically, pallid bats were likely present in a number of locations throughout the Plan
area region, but their populations have
declined in recent decades. Suitable roosting
habitat for this species is present within the
Plan in unoccupied buildings. Although
regular human disturbance limits the site’s
suitability to support a maternity colony or
day roost, and the presence of a colony of
pallid bats within the Plan is unlikely,
individuals from colonies in the region may
occasionally forage within the Plan.

Townsend’s big-eared bat CSSC Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to occur in the Santa Cruz Mountains to the
southwest. Suitable roosting habitat for this
species is present within the Plan in
unoccupied buildings. Although regular
human disturbance limits the site’s suitability
to support a maternity colony or day roost,
and the presence of a colony of Townsend’s
big-eared bats within the Plan area is unlikely,
individuals from colonies in the region
(especially in the Santa Cruz Mountains to the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 916
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 98 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Name Regulatory
Status
Occurrence in Plan
southwest) could occasionally forage over the
site.

Western red bat1 CSSC Individual western red bats occur in the Plan vicinity in low numbers as migrants and
winter residents, but this species does not
breed in the region. Individual western red
bats may roost in the foliage of trees virtually
anywhere in the Plan, but are expected to
roost primarily in riparian areas. Occasional
individuals may forage over the site yearround.

White-tailed kite SP White-tailed kites are known to nest in eastern San Mateo County throughout the
open areas bordering the San Francisco Bay.

Suitable large trees for nesting are present in
the Plan, and up to one pair of white-tailed
kites could nest in suitable nest trees in the
Plan. Individuals may forage occasionally
within the Plan year-round.

Notes:

Federally Endangered (FE); Federally Threatened (FT); Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT); State Threatened (ST); State Candidate (SC)State Fully Protected (SP); California Species of Special Concern (CSSC). 1 May be Present as Nonbreeder.

Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates. San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Biological Resources Report. May 2025.

Sensitive Habitat
Sensitive habitats are protected and regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS.

No sensitive natural communities or vegetation alliances were identified in the Plan.

The riparian habitat within the Plan is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code regulates jurisdiction over the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake.

CDFW riparian jurisdiction extents to the outer edge of riparian tree or shrub canopy along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan.

Portions of Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels (ordinary high water mark [OHW]) are under the jurisdiction of the USACE and regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the U.S. and waters of the state, refer to the riverine and freshwater marsh habitat shown on Figure

3.4-1.

Wildlife Movement
Habitat corridors are essential to terrestrial animals as they provide connectivity between and amongst core habitat areas (i.e., larger, intact habitat areas where species make their living).

Connections between two or more habitat areas help ensure that genetic diversity is maintained,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 917
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 99 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
thereby diminishing the probability of demographic or geographic extinction. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers, and creeks supporting riparian vegetation and ridgelines. With increasing encroachment of humans on wildlife habitats, it has become important to establish and maintain movement corridors and linkages for animals to be able to access locations containing different biotic resources that are essential to maintaining their life cycles.

Belmont Creek provides a movement corridor for fish and other aquatic species, as well as mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. The unnamed channels in the Plan also provide movement corridors for wildlife. However, because these channels connect to other aquatic habitat via underground pipes, they do not provide high-quality movement corridors for fish and other aquatic species. Terrestrial species will make short, local movements along these channels; however, the lack of connectivity between the unnamed channels and high-quality habitat outside of the Plan precludes the use of these channels for longer-distance regional movement by wildlife.

The Plan is located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of bayland habitats, and is largely devoid of habitat areas that would support high numbers of birds, especially migratory bird. The riparian habitat along Belmont Creek serves as the highest-quality movement corridor habitat for migrant songbirds within the Plan. However, no high-quality migratory stopover habitat is present within the Plan.

3.4.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on biological resources, would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 918
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 100 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Special-Status Plants
As stated in Section 3.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no special-status plant species in the Plan area. The majority of the Plan area is developed, with the only undeveloped areas consisting of Belmont Creek, the unnamed channels, and their associated riparian habitat. Due to the nature of the creek and channels, which are engineered, not in their historical alignments, and subject to high-volume scouring flows in the winter, the aquatic habitat and freshwater marsh vegetation along these channels would not be considered suitable habitat for any of the special-status plants that are known to occur in wetlands and aquatic habitats in the region. Similarly, the riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels is dominated by either dense thickets of arroyo willow, which has a sparse to absent understory; dense thickets of nonnative ground covers, or nonnative annual grasses. As such, these areas do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plants that are known from the region.

Special-Status Animals
Table 3.4-1 in Section 3.4.1.2 Existing Conditions summarizes the 12 special-status animals that have the potential to occur on or immediately adjacent to the Plan area.

Monarch Butterfly
The monarch butterfly occurs in the Plan area primarily as a migrant. No larval host plants (milkweeds) were observed within the Plan area during the January 2023 survey; however, portions of the Plan are maintained by mowing, and milkweeds, if present, would not have been detectable at the time. If milkweeds are present, monarch butterflies may breed within the Plan area from March through October. However, due to the limited extent of potentially suitable habitat within the Plan area and regular human disturbance (e.g., from mowing and landscape activities), only small numbers of monarch butterflies are expected to breed there, if any. Small numbers of individuals may forage on flowering plants throughout the Plan area, especially during spring and fall migration. However, the Plan does not provide high-quality foraging habitat for this species.

Plan activities could impact monarch butterfly habitat by removing milkweeds (if present) and flowering plants that provide nectar sources. However, no high-quality habitat capable of supporting large numbers of monarchs is present in the Plan area, so habitat modification would not result in substantial impacts on populations of this species. Further, the Plan would involve increases in open space (i.e., 20 percent of each development would be dedicated to open space) and increases in planting of native vegetation within the proposed Belmont Creek setback and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 919
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 101 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
riparian bank. As a result, the Plan would have an overall beneficial effect on habitat for monarchs, and no significant impact to monarch habitat would occur.

If monarchs are breeding in the Plan area, removal or disturbance of milkweed could result in the loss of eggs or larvae, and pupae could also be impacted if breeding is occurring. However, there is no evidence that large numbers of monarchs breed in the Plan area, if breeding occurs at all, so impacts to monarch eggs, larvae, or pupae would not result in substantial impacts on populations of this species. As a result, Plan impacts on the monarch butterfly would be less than significant.

Northwestern Pond Turtle
Breeding populations of northwestern pond turtles have been extirpated from most urbanized areas in the Plan area region due to urbanization, predation, and development of upland nesting and dispersal habitat. Nevertheless, suitable foraging habitat for northwestern pond turtles may be present within Belmont Creek and along the unnamed channels in the Plan area. It is possible that occasional pond turtles from populations in freshwater habitats upstream in Belmont Creek could disperse downstream to Belmont Creek, and overland to other channels in the Plan area. In the absence of water quality protection measures, Plan activities could degrade foraging habitat for northwestern pond turtles within Belmont Creek (refer to discussion below).

If northwestern pond turtles are present in upland areas (e.g., during dispersal or attempts to find nest sites), construction activities could result in injury or mortality of turtles, or construction of new impediments to dispersal back to areas with more suitable habitat conditions, outside the Plan area. However, very few northwestern pond turtles (if any) are present, and because this species’ activities are confined primarily to waterbodies, which would not be directly impacted at all by Plan activities, the probability and magnitude of any impacts by Plan activities is very low.

Further, the Plan would increase the current SCMC creek setback requirement from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek (where turtles are most likely to occur in the Plan area) and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities.28 These actions would further reduce the likelihood of northwestern pond turtles being impacted by Plan activities and improve habitat conditions along streams. For all these reasons, potential impacts to the northwestern pond turtle from future activities under the Plan would be less than significant.

Nesting Birds
The San Francisco common yellowthroat (a California species of special concern) could potentially nest in marsh habitat and adjacent herbaceous riparian vegetation along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area. However, due to the limited extent and patchy distribution of this habitat, as well as high levels of human disturbance, only small numbers of common yellowthroats (e.g., one to two pairs) are expected to nest within the Plan area. Similarly, it is 28 Under existing conditions, existing development in the Plan does not provide a 25-foot setback since most development pre-dates the City’s setback requirements.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 920
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 102 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
possible that a pair of white-tailed kites (a state fully protected species) could nest in trees somewhere in the Plan area. In addition, a number of non-special-status bird species breed throughout the Plan area.

Redevelopment under the Plan would not result in the loss of suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the San Francisco common yellowthroat, as no activities are proposed within wetland or riparian habitat in the Plan area. However, vegetation removal could remove trees suitable for use by nesting white-tailed kites and could remove structures and vegetation used for nesting by a variety of other, non-special-status bird species. Further, demolition and construction activities that occur during the nesting season could physically impact nests with eggs or young and could cause a substantial increase in noise or human activity near active nests may result in the abandonment of active nests. In addition, heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by project activities could potentially disturb nesting and foraging individuals and cause them to move away from work areas.

Because the number of nesting pairs of San Francisco common yellowthroats and white-tailed kites that could be disturbed directly or indirectly is very small (i.e., one to two pairs of common yellowthroats and one pair of kites), the impacts of Plan redevelopment would represent a very small fraction of the regional population of these species. Similarly, the common bird species that nest in the Plan area are regionally abundant, are present in widely available habitats in the region, and will continue to be present in some portions of the Plan area following construction, so that development under the Plan would impact only a very small proportion of their regional populations, and the number of individuals likely to be displaced by habitat disturbance and loss would be quite small with respect to the amount of suitable habitat available in the area. The Plan would result in an increase in vegetated open space, particularly along streams where habitat quality is (and could potentially be, with redevelopment) highest, by increasing open space requirements and increasing the setback from Belmont Creek for redevelopment activities. Thus, impacts on regional populations of any one bird species resulting from Plan activities would be low.

However, given the extent of the Plan area, the overall number of active nests of all bird species that are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, and that are impacted by Plan activities, could be relatively high, and would be considered significant under CEQA.

Impact BIO-1: Future construction activities associated with build out under the Plan could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment.

Consistent with General Plan Policy EM-1.2, future development under the Plan would implement the following Specific Plan Project Requirements pertaining to migratory nesting birds.

Special-Status Species Project Requirements
• Avoid Nesting-Season Construction if Feasible. To the extent feasible, demolition and construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds in San Mateo County extends from February 1 through August 31, inclusive. If

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 921
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 103 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided.
• Conduct Pre-activity Survey for Active Nests. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities and/or tree removal between September 1 and January 31, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of demolition or construction activities, including tree removal and pruning. During this survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the City’s Planning Manager.
• Provide a Buffer around Active Nests. If an active nest (i.e., a nest with eggs or young) is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code shall be disturbed during project implementation.

With the implementation of the above proposed Specific Plan Project Requirement, future development in the Plan area would not result in impacts to special-status birds and migratory nesting birds by ensuring no construction work takes place in or near their habitat.

Roosting Bats
There is some potential for three special-status bat species that are designated as California species of special concern to occur in the Plan area. The pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat breed in the greater San Francisco Bay area, although primarily in areas that are less urban than the Plan area. Due the extent of human disturbance within the Plan area, the probability that either the pallid bat or Townsend’s big-eared bat breed (i.e., form maternity colonies) in the Plan area is very low. The third special-status bat species, western red bat, does not breed on the San Francisco Peninsula but could occur in the Plan area in small numbers as a migrant and wintering species, roosting solitarily in the foliage of trees.

No trees with cavities suitable for large bat colonies or crevices suitable for individual roosting bats were observed within the Plan area. Additionally, no evidence of active bat roosts was observed on building exteriors during the January 2023 or April 2025 site visit. However, focused surveys (e.g., examination of building interiors and acoustic surveys) to determine presence/absence of roosting bats within buildings in the Plan area were not performed. However, several buildings were determined to be suitable for use by roosting bats under existing conditions; and a number of other buildings were determined to be potentially suitable for use by roosting bats if unoccupied by human activity (refer to Figure 3.4-2). Therefore, it is possible that buildings in the Plan area could

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 922
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 104 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
support roosting bats, including both large and small maternity and non-maternity colonies, especially if they have not been occupied for long periods of time.

Impacts on the western red bat are less than significant because very few individuals would be impacted. This species occurs solitarily during migration and winter, rather than in large groups, and due to the urban nature of the Plan area, it is likely that very few individuals occur in the Plan area at any given time. If a western red bat is present in a tree to be removed, the bat would flush when tree removal activities begin, avoiding direct injury or mortality. Bats that flush during the day would be subject to increased risk of predation by avian predators, but few western red bats (if any) are expected to be injured or killed as a result of Plan activities.

The demolition of any structures supporting a roost of other, cavity/crevice-roosting bat species would result in the direct physical disturbance of any roosting bats that may be present, possibly resulting in injury or mortality, as well as the loss of roosting sites. Building improvements and renovations could also result in such impacts if they affect areas where bats are present or if they block ingress or egress to roost sites; the kinds of improvements most likely to affect bats are those that physically alter the exteriors (including exterior walls), roofs, and attic-like spaces of buildings or that plug holes, cavities, or crevices that allow bats to enter or exit buildings supporting bats.

Demolition or renovation of structures during the bat maternity season (approximately April 1 to August 31) could result in the injury or mortality of young and lactating females within a roost site.

Impacts on any pallid bats or Townsend’s big-eared bats, a large day roost (i.e., 20 or more bats) of common species of bats, or cumulative impacts on 20 or more common bats as multiple buildings are removed, would be considered a significant impact under CEQA, as this could have a substantial effect on regional populations of the species.

Impact BIO-2: Future demolition activities under the Plan could result in direct physical disturbance of any roosting bats that may be present, possibly resulting in injury or mortality, as well as the loss of roosting sites.

Consistent with General Plan Policy EM-1.2, if buildings identified as “Currently Suitable” and buildings identified as “Potentially Suitable if Building is Unoccupied” on Figure 3.4-2 are proposed to demolished or renovated29, the following Specific Plan Project Requirements pertaining to special-status roosting bats.

Roosting Bat Project Requirements
• Conduct Pre-Activity Surveys for Roosting Bats. A pre-activity habitat assessment and survey for roosting bats shall be conducted prior to removal or renovation of buildings. The 29 Building improvements and renovations could also result in such impacts if they affect areas where bats are present or if they block ingress or egress to roost sites; the kinds of improvements most likely to affect bats are those that physically alter the exteriors (including exterior walls), roofs, and attic-like spaces of buildings or that plug holes, cavities, or crevices that allow bats to enter or exit buildings supporting bats.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 923
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 105 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
habitat assessment and survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If the biologist determines that a building provides no suitable bat roost sites, no bat survey would be necessary, but if suitable roost sites exist, a visual survey shall be conducted during the daytime to determine whether bats are present. During this survey, the biologist shall look for bats and evidence of their presence (e.g., guano or urine staining). If the visual survey cannot adequately determine whether bats are present, a dusk survey shall be conducted during suitable weather conditions for bat activity to determine whether bats enter or exit the roost. If no active roosts are found, then no further action is warranted. If a roost is present, a qualified biologist shall determine the species and number of individuals present and implement further measures as described below. Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the biologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and avoidance requirements to the City’s Planning Manager.
• Avoid Disturbance of Active Roosts. If an occupied roost is found in a structure that would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the structure. If the roost is unoccupied at the time of the survey, the project proponent may have a qualified biologist install bat exclusion devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset of the proposed activity. If avoidance is not feasible, the following measures shall be implemented. • Avoid Disturbance of Maternity Roosts. If an active maternity roost is present within the building to be demolished or disturbed and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied roost, disturbance shall not take place during the maternity season (as determined by the qualified biologist, but approximately April 1 to August 31), and an appropriate disturbance-free buffer zone (also determined by the qualified biologist) shall be observed during this period to avoid disturbing the roosting bats.

Following the maternity season, bats can be excluded as described below.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 924
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063
City of San Carlos
106 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, May 2025.
%HOPRQW&UHHN %HOPRQW&UHHN
 Z[
+DUERU%OYG
,QGXVWULDO5G

3ODQ$UHD
3RWHQWLDO%DW5RRVW6LWHV
&XUUHQWO\6XLWDEOH
3RWHQWLDOO\6XLWDEOHLI%XLOGLQJLV8QRFFXSLHG
POTENTIAL BAT ROOST SITES FIGURE 3.4-2
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 107 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active non-breeding roost cannot be avoided, the individuals shall be safely evicted outside the maternity season (as determined by the qualified biologist) between approximately September 1 and April 1. Exclusion methods may include the installation of one-way doors, use of ultrasonic deterrence devices, changing air flow and temperature regimes in the roost space, or other methods that would not trap bats or involve handling bats. One-way doors and/or deterrence devices should be left in place for a minimum of two weeks with a minimum of five fair-weather nights with no rainfall and temperatures no colder than 50°F.

With the implementation of the above proposed Specific Plan Project Requirement, future development in the Plan area would not result in impacts to roosting bat individuals by ensuring proper handling and removal from the site if necessary.

Non-Breeding Special-Status Birds
Several special-status bird species may occur in the Plan area as nonbreeding migrants, transients, or foragers, but they are not known or expected to breed or occur in large numbers within or near the Plan area. These are the Vaux’s swift, Alameda song sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, tricolored blackbird, and yellow warbler. The Vaux’s swift is an aerial forager that would not roost or nest in the Plan area. The other four species may forage in the Plan area, though due to limited availability and low quality of foraging habitat, the Alameda song sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, and tricolored blackbird would occur only in low numbers and/or irregularly. Yellow warblers may be common, foraging in ornamental vegetation, during migration.

Activities under the Plan would have some potential to impact foraging habitats and/or individuals of these species. Construction activities might result in a temporary direct impact through the alteration of foraging patterns (e.g., avoidance of work sites because of increased noise and activity levels during maintenance activities) but would not result in the loss of individuals, as individuals of these species would fly away from any construction areas or equipment before individuals could be injured or killed. Further, the Plan area does not provide important foraging habitat used regularly or by large numbers of individuals of any of these species. As a result, impacts under Plan activities will have little impact on these species’ foraging habitat and no substantive impact on regional populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Indirect Water Quality and Special-Status Species along Belmont Creek No activities are proposed that would directly impact Belmont Creek or any other wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats. Nevertheless, two fish that are California species of special concern (central California roach and Sacramento hitch) may occur in Belmont Creek along the northern edge of the Plan area, and a number of special-status fish and marsh species occur along Belmont Creek and Belmont Slough downstream from the Plan area, and in the absence of measures to protect water quality, development under the Plan could adversely affect water quality, and in turn the habitat quality and health of those species.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 926
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 108 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
However, such impacts would be avoided and minimized by implementing erosion and sediment control measures, as well as BMPs for work near aquatic environments. Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to one acre or greater must comply with state requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the NPDES Construction General Permit (refer to Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the State Water Board describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of BMPs to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including: on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors.

In many Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County, projects must also comply with the Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP). This permit requires that all projects implement BMPs and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design to prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume of water coming from a site after construction has been completed. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors.

Further, future development under the Plan would be required to treat stormwater runoff, increase the current SCMC creek setback requirement from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions will improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions. As a result, potential impacts of Plan activities on water quality and special-status fish and marsh species downstream from the Plan area would be less than significant.

Artificial Lighting Impacts
Many animals are sensitive to light cues, which influence their physiology and shape their behaviors. Artificial lighting may indirectly impact mammals and birds by increasing the nocturnal activity of predators such as owls, hawks, and mammalian predators. The presence of artificial light may also influence habitat use by rodents and by breeding birds by causing avoidance of well-lit areas, resulting in a net loss of habitat availability and quality. Excessive lighting can also alter the behavior of migrating birds. Vertical beams can disorient birds flying at lower altitudes. Birds that encounter beams from up-lights are likely to respond to the lights, and may become disoriented or attracted to the lights to the point that they collide with buildings or other nearby structures.

A Caltrans review of the effects of LEDs on terrestrial wildlife concluded that many species are less sensitive to longer wavelengths/higher-temperature LEDs, but responses vary among species and taxonomic groups, and the diversity of responses of terrestrial wildlife species to lighting temperatures is too large to provide a single recommendation for an ideal lighting spectral composition. Nevertheless, the International Dark-Sky Association, the American Bird Conservancy, and other organizations currently recommend using lighting with a color temperature of 3,000

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 927
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 109 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Kelvin and lower, or ideally 2,700 Kelvin and lower, because cooler/bluer light (defined as 3,000 Kelvin and greater) has a stronger negative effect on plants and animals compared to warmer/redder lights (defined as 2,700 Kelvin and lower).

Currently, considerable artificial lighting of a variety of wavelengths exists in the Plan area and surrounding areas. Simply replacing existing lighting with new lighting of similar intensity, wavelength, and directionality would not result in a substantial impact on wildlife relative to baseline conditions. However, increasing the amount of lighting in the Plan area, the amount of lighting pointed toward the sky, and the amount of lighting with color temperature greater than 2,700 Kelvin could impact wildlife by changing their behavioral patterns, disorienting animals, altering predator-prey dynamics, and affecting other important biological processes and relationships. Such impacts would be particularly detrimental along Belmont Creek and other drainages that support native wildlife, and for migratory birds that may become disoriented (potentially increasing the frequency of bird collisions, as discussed under checklist question d) below) by up-lighting.

Impact BIO-3: Future development under the Plan would introduce new sources of artificial lighting that could impact wildlife.

Consistent with General Plan Policy EM-1.2, future development under the Plan would implement the following Specific Plan Project Requirements pertaining to artificial lighting.

Artificial Lighting Project Requirements
• The following measures will be implemented during any renovation or redevelopment under the Plan that involves new outdoor lighting or replacement of existing lighting with fixtures or luminaires that are not identical in intensity, wavelength, and directionality to those being replaced.
o Through a combination of proper fixture selection, low mounting height, glare shielding, and orientation/aiming of light fixtures, the design team shall actively control undesirable spill of light toward sensitive habitat areas (i.e., Belmont Creek, other drainage channels and associated wetland and riparian habitat, or vegetated open space areas). All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded to block illumination from shining outward toward such sensitive habitat areas and to prevent the lit portions of these fixtures (i.e., the lamps) from being directed toward the sensitive habitat areas.
o Outdoor lighting fixtures shall incorporate lamps with a Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 Kelvin or less.
o Up-lighting shall be avoided, all fixtures shall have a backlight, uplight, and glare (BUG) up-light rating of U0, and the maximum vertical illuminance at any point in the plane of the property line will be 0.05 footcandle, unless the following conditions are met:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 928
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 110 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
 All up-light is directed at building facades such that no light spills upwards past a structure (e.g., into the sky) or outwards into adjacent areas.
 The fixture is programmed to switch off between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise.

With the implementation of the above proposed Specific Plan Project Requirement, future development in the Plan area would not result in impacts to special-status species from artificial lighting.

As discussed above, with the implementation of Specific Plan Project requirements for specialstatus species, future development under the Plan would result in less than significant impacts to special-status species. (Less than Significant Impact)
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?
As described above in Section 3.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, riparian habitat is present along Belmont Creek and several drainage channels within the Plan, as shown on Figure 3.4-1. The riparian habitat within the Plan area is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. No sensitive natural communities or vegetation alliances were identified in the Plan.

The Plan would not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek or any riparian habitats. The Plan would implement a 35-foot setback from the existing top of bank. As discussed in Section 2.3.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, the Plan would implement a 10-foot-wide trail along Belmont Creek. It is anticipated that future development along Belmont Creek would implement the trail. Alterations to the creek are not proposed as part of the Plan and development adjacent to the creek would be evaluated pursuant to CEQA once a project-level design is available. As described above under checklist question a) and in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, all development under Plan buildout would implement measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality during and following construction. Further, the Plan would require treatment of stormwater runoff, increase the creek and riparian setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions would improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions, and would enhance the quality of wetland and aquatic habitats. As a result, potential indirect impacts of Plan activities on sensitive habitats would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 929
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 111 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Portions of Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels (OHW) are under the jurisdiction of the USACE and regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the U.S. and waters of the state. Buildout of the Plan would not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek or any other wetland or aquatic habitats. As discussed in Section 2.3.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, the Plan would implement a 10-foot-wide trail along Belmont Creek. It is anticipated that future development along Belmont Creek would implement the trail. Alterations to the creek are not proposed as part of the Plan and new development adjacent to the creek would be evaluated pursuant to CEQA once a project-level design is available. As described in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, all development under Plan buildout would implement measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality during and following construction. As discussed under checklist question b), the Plan would require treatment of stormwater runoff, increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions would improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions, and would enhance the quality of wetland and aquatic habitats. As a result, potential indirect impacts of Plan activities on wetland and aquatic habitats would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact) d) Would the project 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? Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors are areas of land that connect large areas of habitat where animals live and move.

These corridors help animals move through natural areas. As discussed above in Section 3.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, Belmont Creek provides a movement corridor for fish and other aquatic species, as well as mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. However, the narrow nature of the riparian corridor along this creek and intensively urban land uses along the creek limit wildlife movement.

The unnamed channels in the Plan area also provide movement corridors for wildlife. However, because these channels connect to other aquatic habitat in the vicinity via underground pipes, they do not provide high-quality movement corridors for fish and other aquatic wildlife species. Due to development throughout and surrounding the Plan area, no other well-defined or important movement corridors are present within the Plan area. Wildlife species may move through the developed portions of the Plan area using cover and refugia as they find available. However, most dispersal by wildlife species in the Plan area vicinity likely occurs within higher-quality habitats present in natural sloughs, marshes, and aquatic habitat areas located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the Plan area. Although migratory songbirds use the Plan area as well, no high-quality migratory stopover habitat, such as extensive riparian habitat, oak woodland, or well-vegetated parks, is present within the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 930
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 112 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Buildout under the Plan would not result in any loss or degradation of aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat along Belmont Creek or other existing drainages. Further, the Plan will increase the current SCMC creek setback requirement from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions would broaden the corridors for wildlife movement along these waterbodies, which would enhance the potential for wildlife movement. Increases in open space and native vegetation as a result of the Plan would enhance habitat for migrant birds. For all these reasons, Plan impacts on wildlife movement would be less than significant.

The Plan would not cause substantial impacts to any important native wildlife nursery sites (i.e., an area where breeding is concentrated such as a heron rookery, pinniped pupping area, or seabird colony). Impacts on breeding animals, including breeding colonies of animals (e.g., bat maternity colonies), may occur as described under checklist question a) above, but no breeding areas for the species are so large or regionally important that they rise to the level of an “important native wildlife nursery site”.

Bird Collision
The Plan area and surrounding areas in all directions consist primarily of developed areas such as buildings, parking lots, and roads. Vegetation throughout much of the Plan area is sparse, with only a few non-native landscaped trees and shrubs, and does not draw in large number of birds to the area. However, the dense riparian habitat along Belmont Creek attracts birds to the area, with the other channels and associated riparian habitat supporting fewer birds due to their very narrow nature and the limited development of riparian vegetation.

The Plan would result in the enhancement of habitat along Belmont Creek, other channels, and in the Plan area in general, due to the increase in the riparian setback for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, the requirement for native revegetation in riparian areas, and the increase in open space requirements. Increases in vegetated open space, particularly where native vegetation is planted and along streams, would make the Plan area more attractive to birds, thus increasing the number of resident and migratory birds in the Plan area.

Glass windows and building façades can result in injury or mortality of birds due to birds’ collisions with these surfaces. Birds do not perceive glass as an obstruction the way humans do, therefore they may collide with glass when the sky or vegetation is reflected in glass (e.g., they see the glass as sky or vegetated areas); when transparent windows allow birds to perceive an unobstructed flight route through the glass (such as at corners); and when the combination of transparent glass and interior vegetation (such as in planted atria) results in attempts by birds to fly through glass to reach that vegetation. The greatest risk of avian collisions with buildings occurs in the area within 40 to 60 feet of the ground, because this is the area in which most bird activity occurs. Very tall buildings (e.g., buildings 500 feet or more high) may pose a threat to birds that are migrating through the area, particularly to nocturnal migrants that may not see the buildings or that may be attracted to lights on the buildings.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 931
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 113 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Future development under the Plan could result in bird collisions, causing injury or death.

Considering the size of the Plan area, the number of birds that could be injured or killed over time as a result of increases in façade glazing could be substantial. These collisions could potentially result in the mortality of large numbers of birds relative to the size of regional populations, and enough individuals of common bird species can potentially strike the buildings over the long term to result in a significant impact. The extent of glazing on a building and the presence of vegetation opposite the glazing are known to be two of the strongest predictors of avian collision rates.

Further, the greatest risk of avian collisions with glazed façades is in the area within 60 feet of the ground, because this is the area in which most bird activity occurs. Therefore, collision risk with new or renovated buildings is highest within approximately 60 feet of the ground where landscape vegetation occurs adjacent to or opposite extensive areas of glass.

Impact BIO-4: Future development under the Plan could result in bird collisions, causing injury or death.

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts from Bird Collisions In accordance with General Plan Action EM-1.5, future developments would be required to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions through the use of the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practices.
• Action EM-1.5: Require that new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.

Bird safe-design measures and best management practices may include:
o Avoid the use of highly reflective glass as an exterior treatment, which appears to reproduce natural habitat and can be attractive to some birds, o Limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting birds in building plans by utilizing low-reflectivity glass and providing other non-attractive surface treatments,
o Use low-reflectivity glass or other glazing treatments for the entirety of the building’s glass surface, not just the lower levels,
o For commercial buildings, interior light “pollution” should be reduced during evening hours through the use of a lighting control system, o Exterior lighting should be directed downward and screened to minimize illuminating the exterior of the building at night, except as needed for safety and security,
o Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners should not be allowed,
o Transparent glass should not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs, and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 932
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 114 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
o All roof mechanical equipment should be covered by low-profile angled roofing so that obstacles to bird flight are minimized.

New buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy under the Plan would be required to comply with Action EM-1.5 and incorporate the bird-safe design elements listed in the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR. While compliance with Action EM-1.5 would minimize bird strikes for buildings that are mostly below 40 feet in height, there is still a risk for bird collisions at 40 to 60 feet above the ground. Therefore, in addition, future development exceeding 40 feet under the Plan would implement the following Specific Plan Project Requirements pertaining to bird collisions to account for bird-safe design measures in areas where most collisions occur, at 40-60 feet off the ground.

Bird Collision Project Requirements
• Renovation and redevelopment under the Plan shall implement the following bird-safe building design considerations for all buildings exceeding 40 feet above ground within 300 feet of Belmont Creek or any contiguous open space areas (including other drainages and future open space areas created by the Plan) two acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats:
o The extent of glass on the façades of new buildings and additions shall be minimized to the extent feasible.
o No more than 10 percent of the surface area of the façades of buildings (considering all facades combines) shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground. Bird-safe glazing treatments may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and/or physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or ultraviolet patterns visible to birds. Bird-safe glazing shall have the following specifications:
 Vertical elements of the window patterns will be at least ¼-inch wide at a maximum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8-inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches; OR
 Bird-safe glazing shall have a Threat Factor less than or equal to 30. o No more than 10 percent of the surface area of any façades directly facing Belmont Creek or any open space areas two acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats, and/or façade areas within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces, shall have untreated glazing. o All glazing panels at corners of façades that face Belmont Creek or any open space areas two acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats, between the ground and 60 feet above ground and/or within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces (regardless of their height above ground), shall be 100 percent treated.
o To reduce reflections of clouds and vegetation in glass and help ensure that birdsafe treatments on the lower surfaces of glass are visible below any reflections, glazing shall have a visible reflectance of 15 percent or lower.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 933
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 115 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
o Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners between the ground and 60 feet above ground and/or within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces (regardless of their height above ground) shall not be allowed, unless the glazing is 100 percent treated. o Transparent glass should not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs, unless the glazing is 100 percent treated. o A project may receive a waiver from one or more of the requirements above if a qualified biologist documents that glazing in a particular area will not increase bird collision risk or documents why alternative bird-safe design measures would be at least as effective as the above requirements. Any such waiver must be approved by the City.

With the implementation of the above proposed Specific Plan Project Requirement, as well as compliance with General Plan policies related to biological resources, future development under the Plan would result in less than significant impacts on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. (Less than Significant Impact)
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Buildout under the Plan would result in the removal of trees. All future development would be required to adhere to Section 18.18.070 of the SCMC, which defines significant, protected, and heritage trees and sets forth tree replacement and protection requirements. As a result, the Plan would have a less than significant impact related to conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (Less than Significant Impact) f) Would the project 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 habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the Plan or Plan area. Therefore, Plan implementation would not conflict with any such plan. (No Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 934
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 116 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative biological resources impact?
The geographic area for cumulative biological resources impacts includes the Plan area and adjacent parcels, where construction and operation of future development under the Plan could contribute to on- and off-site impacts to biological resources.

Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
As discussed under checklist question a), the surrounding area is highly urbanized, with the only undeveloped areas consisting of Belmont Creek, the unnamed channels, and their associated riparian habitat. There are no special-status plant species in the Plan area. The Plan would comply with General Plan policies related to migratory nesting birds. Development as a result of the Plan would implement special-status species project requirements for the protection of roosting bats and to reduce impacts from artificial lighting. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would not result in significant cumulative biological resources impacts. Future cumulative projects in the City would be required to adhere to General Plan policies(EM-1.1 and EM-1.2) protecting biological resources. As such, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to nesting migratory birds and raptors.

Riparian Habitats, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Wetlands Buildout of the Plan would not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek or any other wetland or aquatic habitats. As described in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, all development under Plan buildout, as well as cumulative projects in the City, would implement measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality during and following construction. Development under the Plan would increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions would improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions, and would enhance the quality of wetland and aquatic habitats. Therefore, the Plan would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on wetland and aquatic habitats.

Movement, Migration, or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Redevelopment under the Plan would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement or migration. Future cumulative development in the Plan area would be required to increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. Future cumulative development, including development under the Plan, would be required to adhere to General Plan policies to protect biological resources, including Action EM-1.5. To further mitigate impacts due to bird collisions, new development under the Plan exceeding 40 feet in height would be required to

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 935
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 117 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
implement bird collision project requirements. With adherence to these policies and requirements, potential cumulative impacts on wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant.

Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Future development under the Plan would comply with policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, specifically those outlined in Section 18.18.070 of the SCMC. Future cumulative development would also be required to comply with the City’s requirements to protect trees and provide replacement planting for trees removed. For these reasons, the cumulative projects would not conflict with the City’s policies and regulations for tree protection.

Habitat Conservation Plans
Future cumulative development (including the Plan) is not located within an approved local, state, or national habitat conservation plan area. Thus, there would be no cumulative conflict with a Habitat Plan.

With the implementation of project-specific requirements and adherence to existing regulations and General Plan policies and actions, the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant biological resources impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 936
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 118 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.5 Cultural Resources
The following discussion is based upon an Archaeological Review and Built Environment Resource Reconnaissance prepared by PaleoWest in March 2024. A copy of the report, which is a confidential report, is on file at the City of San Carlos Community Development Department and is available upon request with appropriate credentials.

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

The NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of historic resources that are considered significant at the national, state, or local level. The minimum criteria for determining NRHP eligibility include:
• The property is at least 50 years old (properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP); • It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations; and
• It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:
o Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;
o Association with the lives of persons significant in the past; o Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or o Has yielded, or may yield, information important to prehistory or history.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 937
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 119 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.30 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

Senate Bill 18
The intent of SB 18 is to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning by requiring city governments to consult with California Native American tribes on projects which include adoption or amendment of general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the 30 California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” Accessed August 31, 2020. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 938
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 120 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
The discovery of human remains is regulated by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation…until the coroner…has determined…that the remains are not subject to…provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible…. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and…has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating cultural resource impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
LU-1.10 Require that development within the Pulgas, Brittan and Cordilleras Creek watersheds shall preserve watershed integrity, including natural vegetation, soil and slope stability, water quality, scenic values and potential archaeological resources.

LU-12.1 Evaluate historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties.

LU-12.2 Foster the preservation, restoration, and compatible reuse of architecturally and/ or significant structures and sites.

LU-12.3 Ensure that modifications to identified historic resources are consistent with the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 939
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 121 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
LU-12.4 Encourage continued use and adaptive reuse of designated historic resources through application of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and restoration.

LU-12.5 Treat with respect and dignity any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the city and fully comply with the California native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.

LU-12.6 Promote the maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation of historical resources through but not limited to the use of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, State incentives including the Mills Act and the California Cultural and Historical Endowment and the California State Historical Building Code.

San Carlos Municipal Code
The SCMC is the primary document that regulates the policies and practices of the City. The SCMC contains the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Building and Construction Code, and other titles that are important in implementing the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to cultural resources as follows:
• Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, adopts the 2022 California Historical Building Code as the rules, regulations, and standards within the city as to all matters except as modified or amended in the SCMC.

Existing Conditions
Archaeological Resources
A records search was completed for the Plan at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on January 10, 2023. The records search involved a review of all recorded resources and cultural resource reports on file for the Plan and a surrounding

0.25-mile buffer. No archaeological resources were identified within the Plan or immediate vicinity.

The Sacred Lands File results were negative. However, it is always possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels, especially because the Plan was historically on the bay shore before the area was dredged in the late 1940s.

Historic Resources
The records search identified one historic-period building within the Plan, at 181 Industrial Road.

The building was constructed in 1956 and was previously determined not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR. The City does not maintain its own historic register. As part of the Archaeological Review and Built Environment Resource Reconnaissance, historical maps were reviewed to identify potential historic-period (45 years or older) resources within and in the vicinity of the Plan area. The review identified 80 additional buildings that date to the historic period (45 years or older), as summarized in Table 3.5-1Table 3.3-1 below. These buildings have not been previously evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP or CRHR.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 940
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 122 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.5-1: Historic Period Buildings in the Plan
Address APN Year Built Age Building Type
495 Bragato Road 046-052-330 1956 67 Industrial (warehouse) 500 Bragato Road 046-052-280 1952 71 Commercial (warehouse and office space)
501 Bragato Road 046-052-340 1962 61 Industrial (manufacturing) 520 Bragato Road 046-052-280 1952 71 Industrial (warehouse) 535 Bragato Road 046-052-250 1969 54 Industrial (warehouse) 540-560 Bragato Road 046-052-280 1975 48 Commercial (office) 555 Bragato Road 046-052-200 1950 73 Industrial (manufacturing) 565 Bragato Road 046-053-180 1968 55 Industrial (manufacturing) 570 Bragato Road 046-052-280 1952 71 Industrial (warehouse) 110 Glenn Way 046-0533-50 1973 50 Industrial (warehouse) 111 Glenn Way 046-052-220 1966 57 Industrial (warehouse) 120 Glenn Way 046-053-350 1972 51 Industrial (warehouse) 131 Glenn Way 046-052-230 1966 57 Industrial (manufacturing) 161 Glenn Way 046-052-080 1968-1980 43-55 Commercial (office and warehouse)
170 Glenn Way 046-053-290 1974 49 Industrial (warehouse) 195 Glenn Way 046-052-070 1969 54 Commercial (office)
70 Glenn Way 046-053-190 1966 57 Industrial (warehouse) 71 Glenn Way 046-052-260 1967 56 Industrial (warehouse) 80 Glenn Way 046-053-160 1968 55 Industrial (warehouse) 90 Glenn Way 046-053-210 1968 55 Industrial (warehouse) 120 Industrial Road 046-021-080 1957,
renovated
1997
66 Industrial (research and
development)
150 Industrial Road 046-021-080 1957,
renovated
1997
66 Industrial (research and
development)
151 Industrial Road 046-020-450,
046-020-460, and
046-020-470
1974 49 Commercial (storage) and
adjacent paved easements
and parking lot
161 Industrial Road 046-020-120 1952 71 Industrial (warehouse) and rear parking lot
171 Industrial Road 046-020-260 and
046-020-430
1952 71 Commercial (auto body
shop)
181 Industrial Road 046-020-300 1956 67 Industrial (warehouse)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 941
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 123 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Address APN Year Built Age Building Type
191 Industrial Road 046-020-280 and
046-020-090
1952 71 Commercial (auto sales)
200 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Industrial (warehouse and distribution)
210 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Commercial (retail complex) 234 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Commercial (auto repair) 236 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Commercial (auto repair) 242 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Commercial (metal manufacturing, auto repair)
244 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Commercial (auto repair) 266 Industrial Road 046-052-270 1960 63 Industrial (manufacturing and distribution)
268 Industrial Road 046-052-330 1956 67 Commercial (auto sales) 270 Industrial Road 046-052-040,
046-052-100,
046-052-030, and
046-052-050
1956 67 Industrial (manufacturing)
300 Industrial Road 046-054-190 1969 54 Industrial (manufacturing) 320 Industrial Road 046-054-210 1971 52 Industrial (manufacturing and warehouse)
380 Industrial Road 046-054-390,
046-054-400, and
046-054-250
1975 48 Industrial (warehouse)
380–400 Industrial Road 046-054-400 and
046-054-250
1968 55 Parking lot and access road
389 Industrial Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Industrial (warehouse) 390 Industrial Road 046-054-020 1960 63 Industrial (manufacturing) 400 Industrial Road 046-054-010 1962 61 Industrial (warehouse) 150 Old County Road 046-041-380 1956 67 Industrial (warehouse) 1501 Old County Road 046-040-360 1963 60 Industrial complex containing 643, 645, and 650
Quarry Road)
151 Old County Road 046-041-380 1946-1956 67-77 Industrial (warehouses) and commercial (office)
205 Old County Road 046-040-300 1951 72 Industrial (service) 209 Old County Road 046-040-050 1952 71 Industrial (service) 235 Old County Road 046-053-170 1969 54 Industrial (warehouse) 239 Old County Road 046-053-080 1958 65 Industrial (warehouse and shop)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 942
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 124 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Address APN Year Built Age Building Type
243 Old County Road 046-053-070 1958 65 Industrial (warehouse) 247 Old County Road 046-053-060 1964 59 Commercial (retail) 251 Old County Road 046-053-310 1946 77 Commercial (retail) 301 Old County Road 046-054-100 1965 58 Industrial (warehouse) and commercial (retail)
303 Old County Road 046-054-100 and
046-054-090
1965 58 Parking lot adjacent to APN
046-054-100
335 Quarry Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Commercial (office) 345 Quarry Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Industrial (warehouse) 355 Quarry Road 046022010 1951 72 Industrial (warehouse and distribution)
361 Quarry Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Industrial (auto repair) 383 Quarry Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Industrial (auto repair) 385 Quarry Road 046-022-010 1951 72 Industrial (auto repair) 401 Quarry Road 046-040-320 1956 67 Industrial (manufacturing) 403 Quarry Road 046-040-320 1956 67 Industrial (manufacturing) 503 Quarry Road 046-040-320 1956 67 Industrial (warehouse) 591 Quarry Road 046-040-320 1956 67 Industrial complex
595 Quarry Road 046-040-320 1956 67 Parking lot and access road 597 Quarry Road 046-040-320 1956 67 Industrial (warehouse and manufacturing)
610 Quarry Road 046-041-370 1955 68 Industrial (manufacturing) 639 Quarry Road 046-040-370 1965 58 Industrial (auto repair) 642 Quarry Road 046-041-380 1956 67 Industrial (warehouse and office)
643 Quarry Road 046-040-360 1963 60 Industrial (warehouse) 645 Quarry Road 046-040-360 1963 60 Industrial (warehouse) 647 Quarry Road 046-040-360 1963 60 Industrial (auto repair) 541 Taylor Way 046-054-220 1972 51 Industrial (warehouse and office)
551 Taylor Way 046-054-310 and
046-054-260
1962 61 Industrial (warehouse) and
parking lot
590 Taylor Way 046-052-110,
046-052-060, and
046-052-090
1960 63 Industrial (warehouse) and
parking lot
601 Taylor Way 046-054-120 1964 59 Industrial (warehouse) 611 Taylor Way 046-054-130 and
046-054-510
1977 46 Industrial (warehouse) and
parking lot

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 943
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 125 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Address APN Year Built Age Building Type
620 Taylor Way 046-053-290 1974 49 Industrial (warehouse and manufacturing)
675 Taylor Way 046-054-100 1965 58 Industrial (manufacturing) 551 Taylor Way 046-054-270 1962 61 Commercial (showroom) Source: PaleoWest. Results of the Archaeological Literature Review and Built Environment Resource Reconnaissance for the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan, San Mateo County, California. March 19, 2024.

3.5.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on cultural resources, would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Project Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
A project could have a significant impact on a historic resource if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the historic significance of that resource. A “substantial adverse change” is defined as the physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.

As discussed in Section 3.5.1.2, there are a total of 81 buildings within and in the vicinity of the Plan area that date to the historic period (45 years or older). The building at 181 Industrial Road was previously determined not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR. The other 80 buildings have not been evaluated and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. In addition, there may be other buildings in the Plan area that are eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHP.

While the Plan does not propose the removal of any specific buildings including any that have been identified as historic resources, implementation of the Plan would allow for new development and redevelopment over a period of approximately 20 years that could directly or indirectly affect historic resources, including those that have yet to be identified and evaluated.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 944
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 126 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Impact CUL-1: Future development projects under the Plan could indirectly or directly impact known and unknown historic buildings and structures by removing historic buildings and structures, or altering the setting for historic properties.

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts to Historic Resources Future development projects would comply with the following General Plan policies and actions pertaining to historic resources.
• Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties. • Policy LU-12.2: Foster the preservation, restoration and compatible reuse of architecturally and/or historically significant structures and sites.
• Policy LU-12.3: Ensure that modifications to identified historic resources are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • Policy LU-12.4: Encourage continued use and adaptive reuse of designated historic resources through application of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitation, reconstruction and restoration. • Policy LU-12.6: Promote the maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation of historical resources through but not limited to the use of Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, State incentives including the Mills Act and the California Cultural and Historical Endowment and the California State Historical Building Code.
• Action LU-12.1: Ensure thorough compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to potential impacts to cultural and historical resources.

Construction adjacent to a historic resource, in conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards as required by the General Plan, would have less than significant impacts to the historic integrity of the resources because it would require appropriate treatments to retain the historical significance or physical conditions.

For the purposes of this analysis, because this is a program-level document, it is assumed impacts to historic resources, including as yet identified resources, would be avoided through implementation of General Plan policies (listed above), as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04 (refer to Section 3.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework). If a future project could adversely affect historic resources, supplemental analysis would be required to identify mitigation measures (or alternatives) necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. With the implementation of these policies and actions, future development projects under the Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 945
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 127 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? As discussed in Section 3.5.1.2 Existing Conditions, no archaeological resources were identified within the Plan or immediate vicinity. However, it is always possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels, especially because the Plan was historically on the bay shore before the area was dredged in the late 1940s.

Impact CUL-2: Future development projects under the Plan could inadvertently discover unknown archaeological resources during construction.

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts to Archaeological Resources • Policy LU-1.10: Require that development within the Pulgas, Brittan and Cordilleras Creek watersheds shall preserve watershed integrity, including natural vegetation, soil and slope stability, water quality, scenic values and potential archaeological resources. • Policy LU-12.1: Evaluate historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources early in the development review process through consultation with interested parties.

Compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and General Plan policies LU-1.10 and LU-12.1 would protect archaeological resources in the Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact) c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Future development projects under the Plan could directly or indirectly disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries during future construction activities.

Future development projects would be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code, as discussed in Section 3.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework. Specifically, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the county coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. An NAHC representative will then identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 946
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 128 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Impact CUL-3: Future development projects under the Plan could inadvertently discover human remains during construction.

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts to Human Remains • Policy LU-12.5: Treat with respect and dignity any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the city and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.

With the mandatory regulatory procedures and compliance with the General Plan policies discussed above, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidentally unearthed during construction activities associated with future development would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Cumulative Impacts
a) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact?
Historic Resources
The geographic area for cumulative impacts to historic resources is Citywide.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to historic resources with continued compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and General Plan goals, policies, and actions described in checklist questions a) above.

Archaeological Resources
The geographic area for cumulative impacts to archaeological resources includes parcels in the Plan area and adjacent parcels, where construction and operation of future development under the Plan could contribute to on- and off-site impacts to archaeological resources.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to archaeological resources with continued compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and General Plan goals, policies, and actions described in checklist questions b) above.

Human Remains
All cumulative projects would be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code, as discussed in Section 3.5.1.1 Regulatory

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 947
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 129 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Framework. With the mandatory regulatory procedures and compliance with the General Plan policies discussed above, potential cumulative impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidentally unearthed during construction activities associated with cumulative development would be less than significant.

For these reasons, the cumulative projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 948
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 130 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.6 Energy

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, requiring statewide emissions reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2008, EO S-14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18 and Assembly Bill 1279
Executive Order B-55-18 was issued in September 2018. It ordered a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter.

Assembly Bill 1279, also known as the California Climate Crisis Act, was approved on September 16, 2022, and codifies the statewide goal set by Executive Order B-55-18 of achieving net zero GHG emissions no later than the year 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. In addition, this bill has a statewide goal of reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2045. The bill requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure that updates to the scoping plan, identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals, and implement strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in California. The bill requires CARB to submit an annual report.

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 949
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 131 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years.31 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.32
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. CALGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II program in 2022 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2026 through 2035. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings.33 Regional and Local
San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
The 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) is San Carlos’ strategic plan to reduce GHG emissions and to adapt to changing climate conditions. The CMAP allows City of San Carlos decision-makers, staff, and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions and the impacts of climate change on the community, reduce GHG emissions, prioritize steps to achieve GHG emission-reduction targets, and increase resilience. The CMAP is an update of the 2009 Climate Action Plan (2009 CAP), providing updated information, an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies, climate adaptation strategies, and a planning horizon out to 2050. The City is committed to reducing emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels (equal to 49 percent below 2005 levels) by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels (or 83 percent below 2005 levels) by 2050. The City’s CMAP is a qualified GHG reduction strategy pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, although the 2021 CMAP predates the 2045 General Plan Reset and, therefore, does not address the inventory of emissions associated with the 2045 General Plan Reset, and therefore the General 31 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo. 32 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-buildingenergy-efficiency. 33 California Air Resources Board. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 950
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 132 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Plan Reset includes an action item for the CMAP to be updated to address the growth in GHG emissions resulting from the buildout of the 2045 General Plan Reset.

If a proposed development within the City of San Carlos is consistent with the emission reduction and adaptation strategies included in the CMAP and the programs are developed as a result of the CMAP, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on climate change and emissions (Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064). The CMAP includes strategies that would support the City’s 2030 and 2045 GHG emissions reductions goals; however, the CMAP demonstrates consistency with current legislative reduction targets for 2030 and not the carbon neutrality goal for 2045. In addition, the proposed Plan would facilitate population growth and development beyond what was accounted for in the CMAP, given the 2021 CMAP predates the 2045 General Plan Reset.

Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 6,882 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2022, the most recent year for which this data was available.34 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 49th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent (1,204 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 17 percent (1,193 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 22 percent (1,539 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 43 percent (2,916 trillion Btu) for transportation.35 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

Electricity
In 2023, California produced approximately 90 percent of the electricity it consumed and the rest was imported from outside the state.36 California’s non-carbon dioxide emitting electric generation (from nuclear, large hydroelectric, solar, wind, and other renewable sources) accounted for approximately 54 percent of total in-state generation for 2023.37 Electricity from natural gaspowered plants makes up 39 percent of the state electricity generation and the remaining seven percent of the state’s electricity generation is from nuclear power.

California’s total system electric generation in 2023 was approximately 215,623 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which was down two percent from 2022’s total generation of approximately 221,703 GWh.38 In 2022 nonhydroelectric renewables represented the largest portion of the state’s electricity sources (at 56 percent). Natural gas generation accounted for more than 44 percent of all electricity generation.39
34 United States Energy Information Administration. “California State Energy Profile.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 U.S. Energy Information Administration. California State Energy Profile. Accessed March 21, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA#tabs-3 38 California Energy Commission. “2023 Total System Electric Generation.” Accessed March 21, 2025. 39 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 951
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 133 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Electricity in San Mateo County in 2022 was consumed primarily by the non-residential sector (62 percent), with the residential sector consuming 38 percent. In 2022, a total of approximately 4,177 GWh of electricity was consumed in San Mateo County.
40 Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is a public and locally controlled electricity provider for the County of San Mateo. Electricity provided by PCE is delivered through PG&E transmission lines. Commercial and residential customers in San Mateo County are included in the PCE service area and can choose to have 50 to 100 percent of their electricity supplied from carbon-free and renewable sources.

Customers are automatically enrolled in the ECOplus plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent carbon-free sources, with at least 50 percent from renewable sources. Customers have the option to enroll in the ECO100 plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent carbon-free, renewable sources. 41,42
Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within San Carlos. In 2023, California’s natural gas supply came from a combination of in-state production and imported supplies from other western states and Canada.43 In 2022, San Mateo County used 1.7 percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.44
Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2023, California produced 118 million barrels of crude oil and in 2019, 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.45, 46 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 26.0 mpg in 2022. 47 Federal fuel economy standards
have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007.

That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon 40 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed August 14, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 41 Peninsula Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/faq/. 42 Peninsula Clean Energy. “Energy Choices.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/energy-choices/. 43 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2023 California Gas Report. Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Supplement.pdf. 44Ibid. 45 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” February 28, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a 46 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist. 47 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2023 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” December 2023. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/420r23033.pdf.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 952
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 134 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
by the year 2020, was updated in April 2022 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 49 mpg by model year 2026.48,49

3.6.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on energy, would the project:
1) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 3) Result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction
Construction associated with future development under the Plan would result in the temporary usage and consumption of electricity to power electric construction equipment, mobile offices, or water delivered to construction sites; gasoline and diesel fuel used for transportation of workers and haul trucks to and from construction sites; and fuel used for operation of off-road equipment.

Construction-related energy usage and consumption would be dispersed over the course of the build out period, and would vary based on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment, and number of personnel. Since the timing and intensity of the construction activity required for future development projects under the Plan is not yet known, energy consumption during construction of future development cannot be quantified.

For any project, the overall construction schedule and process is designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel would not be used wastefully on the project site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it.

Further, the Plan is in an urbanized area in proximity to roadways, construction supplies, and workers, making it more efficient than construction occurring in outlying, undeveloped areas. 48 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 14, 2024. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa. 49 United States Department of Transportation. USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-newvehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026.