San Carlos City Council
June 8, 2026

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 953
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 135 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Therefore, energy consumption by construction of future development would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Operation
The Plan is currently developed with approximately 2,617,497 square feet of light industrial, office, and institutional uses. There are currently no residential uses within the Plan. Buildout of the Plan would allow for a net increase of 1,890 residential units and 4,508,000 square feet of nonresidential uses. Under the Plan, approximately 418,000 square feet of existing uses would be removed to accommodate redevelopment under the Plan.

Once constructed, gasoline would be consumed during those trips by future residents , employees, customers, and visitors relying on internal combustion-powered vehicles, which is anticipated to be primarily light-duty vehicles. Electricity would be consumed by future development to power buildings and those trips using vehicles powered by electricity. Table 3.6-1 below summarizes existing annual energy use and the increase in energy use under the Plan.

Table 3.6-1: Estimated Annual Energy Use
Electricity Use
(kWh/yr.)
Natural Gas Use
(kBtu/yr.)
Gasoline
(gal./yr.)
A. Existing Conditions 45,908,529 107,352,023 2,353,2061 B. Existing Uses to be Removed (5,248,326) (15,389,465) (314,085)2 C. Plan (including existing
retained uses) 92,285,636 122,802,645 4,186,6333
Net Increase [C – (A-B)] 51,625,433 30,840,087 2,147,512 Notes:
1 The gasoline demand is based on the estimated VMT of 57,418,215 and an average fuel demand of 24.4 mpg. 2 The gasoline demand is based on the estimated VMT of 102,153,824 and an average fuel demand of 24.4 mpg. 3 The gasoline demand is based on the estimated VMT of 7,663,679 and an average fuel demand of 24.4 mpg.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. March 2025.

U.S. Department of Energy. “Maps and Data – Average Fuel Economy by Major Vehicle Category.” January 2024. https://afdc.energy.gov/data
As shown in Table 3.6-1, buildout of the Plan would result in an increase in electricity use compared to existing conditions. 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 energy-efficient than the use being replaced, resulting in reductions in building electricity consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when compared to existing development. In addition, SCMC Chapter 15.04 requires many new construction projects to be designed all-electric; however, it is unknown at this time to what extent

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 954
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 136 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
this requirement would be placed on new construction projects due to the varying exceptions that could apply; e.g. federal law preempts a local jurisdiction from banning the use of natural gas.

As shown in Table 3.6-1, buildout of the Plan would result in an increase in natural gas use compared to existing conditions. While the City currently has a reach code requiring all-electric building designs for most new projects (SCMC Section 4.106.5), it cannot be guaranteed that every individual development project facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to this requirement, as federal law preempts a local jurisdiction from banning the use of natural gas.

Similar to electricity consumption, all future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen and would result in reductions in heating fuel (i.e., natural gas or propane) consumption.

As shown in Table 3.6 1, buildout of the Plan would result in an increase in gasoline consumption compared to existing conditions. 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.

Further, as described in Section 2.3.7 of this EIR, all new development in the Plan would be subject to TDM requirements. Consistent with C/CAG’s TDM Policy, it is assumed that all new development would achieve a minimum 25 percent vehicle trip reduction.

As documented above, while the Plan would increase electricity and natural gas use and gasoline consumption compared to existing conditions, the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project operation. Further, the following General Plan policies encourage the reduction of nonrenewable energy use and improvement of energy efficiency.

General Plan Policies that Reduce Energy Impacts
• Policy LU-8.18: Encourage “green building” practices in new development and redevelopment, such as those that make a building more energy efficient and reduces its effect on human health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, maintenance and operation.
• Policy EM -9.2: Support on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production such as solar panels, wind turbines and biomass facilities. • Policy EM -9.6: Encourage new private construction and major remodels to be designed to meet or exceed Green Uniform Building Code requirements.

For the reasons discussed above, the project would not result in a wasteful use of energy. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 955
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 137 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As discussed above under checklist question a), buildout of the Plan would increase consumption of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. 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 energy-efficient than the use being replaced, resulting in reductions in building electricity consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when compared to existing development. Similar to electricity consumption, all future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen and would result in reductions in heating fuel (i.e., natural gas or propane) consumption. In addition, all future development would comply with SCMC and the General Plan policies noted above to further reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency. While the Plan would result in an increase in demand on existing energy resources, future development under the Plan would be required to comply with applicable regulations and City policies that would conserve energy and water and reduce fuel consumption and waste generation. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. For these reasons, the project would comply with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact) c) Would the project result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies?
Electricity
The demand for electricity in California will continue to increase through 2035 due to population growth, climate change, and transportation trends (e.g., increased EV usage). As discussed in Section 3.6.1.2, California’s total system electric generation in 2023 was approximately 215,623 GWh. The Plan’s increase in energy consumption represents 0.02 percent of the State’s total electric generation in 2023. Efficiency and production capabilities, such as SB 100, would help meet increased electricity demand in the future, such as improving energy efficiency in existing and future buildings, establishing energy efficiency targets, inclusion of microgrids and zero-net energy buildings, and integrating renewable technologies.50 Future development under the Plan would be built to the most recent CALGreen requirements and Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which would improve the efficiency of the growth allowed under the Plan. Also, refer to the discussion under checklist question a) as to why the Plan buildout would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. For these reasons, the Plan buildout’s increase in electricity use would not result in a significant increase in demand on electrical energy resources in relation to projected supplies statewide.
50 California Energy Commission. “2016 Integrated Energy Policy Report.” Accessed February 18, 2025. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2016_energypolicy/

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 956
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 138 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Natural Gas
Natural gas supply and demand data and reporting is provided at the state level. Statewide natural gas demand is projected to decline at an annual average rate of 1.1 percent per year through 2035, and gas demand will continue to decrease as the state moves towards carbon neutrality by 2045 or sooner.51 As discussed under checklist question a), 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.

Therefore, the Plan buildout would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas.

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
Future trips from development under the Plan would increase gasoline use by approximately 2,147,512 gallons per year compared to existing conditions. This increase is small (less than 0.01 percent) when compared to the 17,121 million gallons of gasoline consumed in California in 2022 for commercial and industrial uses.52 The project’s gasoline use would be reduced given its proximity to existing transit. Furthermore, new automobiles purchased by future employees and residents would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards applied throughout the State of California, which means that over time, the fuel efficiency of vehicles associated with the project would improve. In addition, an increasing percentage of new vehicles over the timeframe of Plan buildout are anticipated to be electric. For the above reasons, the project would not result in a significant increase in gasoline demand relative to projected supply. Also, refer to the discussion under checklist question a) as to why the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of gasoline. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
a) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact?
By its nature, energy is a cumulative resource. The geographic area for cumulative energy impacts is the state. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the state’s energy impacts.

If the project is determined to have a significant energy impact, it is concluded that the impact is cumulatively considerable. As discussed under checklist questions a) through c) above, the project would not result in significant energy impacts. The project would not result in significant cumulative energy impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) 51 California Gas and Utilities. 2022 California Gas Report. Pages 6 and 10. 52 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Table F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2022.” Accessed February 18, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 957
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 139 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.7 Geology and Soils

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site-specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake-related hazards.

California Building Standards Code
The California Building Code (CBC) prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 958
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 140 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These materials are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

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 geology and soil impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
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.

ESPS-1.2 Prohibit structural development in known areas where seismic and geological hazards cannot be mitigated.

ESPS-1.3 Continue to monitor and enforce mitigation measures to reduce risk for projects where geological and seismic hazards can be mitigated.

ESPS-1.4 Enforce requirements of the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act should any fault traces in San Carlos be discovered and prove to be active or potentially active.

ESPS-1.5 Continue to incorporate seismic risk analysis into the City's ongoing building inspection program through thorough review of projects by plan check and field inspections.

ESPS-1.6 Continue to encourage retrofitting of structures, particularly older buildings, to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides, consistent with state Building Codes and Historic Building Codes.

ESPS-1.7 Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision- making, site design and construction standards.

ESPS-1.9 Continue to ensure that seismic hazards are mitigated to the greatest extent possible for critical public facilities, infrastructure and emergency services.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 959
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 141 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 geology and soils as follows:
• Chapter 12.08, Grading and Excavations, requires an interim and final erosion and sediment control plan as part of the grading permit application. • Chapter 13.04, Sewer Connections, requires all new construction to connect to the City of San Carlos sanitary sewer system. Wastewater from new lots or parcels would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system serviced by the City. • Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Code, of Title 15, Buildings and Construction, adopts the CBC by reference with specified modifications. Chapter 15.04 recognizes that the city is located in a seismically active area very close to the San Andreas Fault, one of the most significant earthquake fault zones in the State of California. This chapter also recognizes that there is the moderate potential for erosion and slope instability/landslides in approximately fifty percent of the city and that expansive soils or bedrock varies in significance in over twothirds of the entire city. The city limit and Sphere of Influence (SOI) are in CBC Seismic Zone 4, as is about 45 percent of the State of California; consequently, construction within San Carlos would be required to meet the most stringent building code standards. Seismic zone designations range from zone 0 to zone 4. The ascending numbers indicate the respective increase in the required factor of safety applied to structural design equations for resisting earthquake-induced ground accelerations.
• Chapter 12.08, Grading and Excavations, of Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places, provides the minimum standards to protect property, preserve natural beauty and enhance water quality, and control erosion, sedimentation, increases in surface runoff and related environmental damage caused by construction-related activities, by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use, location and maintenance of grading, excavating and fill, land disturbances, land fill and soil storage in connection with the clearing and grading of land for construction, within the city. • Chapter 17.36, Improvements, explains that sanitary sewer facilities connecting with the existing City sewer system shall be installed to serve each lot and to grades, location, design and sizes approved by the City Engineer.

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 960
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 142 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Existing Conditions
Regional and Site Geology
San Carlos is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, which is set within the larger Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges that stretch from the Oregon border on the north to Point Conception on the south. The City is underlain by Holocene-age coarse-grained alluvium.
53 The geology within San Carlos is mainly unconsolidated sedimentary deposits underlain by sedimentary rock.
54 The lowland deposits, which underlie most of San Carlos, consist mostly of the deposits of Holocene age alluvium (less than 11,000 years old) consisting of a mix of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Some older Pleistocene age deposits are also present, but with similar compositions. In the east parts of the City, the surface deposits are artificial fill consisting of a mix of gravel, sand, Bay mud, broken concrete, cement, asphalt, and solid waste, as much as ten feet thick.

Groundwater
Groundwater levels can fluctuate temporally due to a variety of factors, including seasonal variations in precipitation and temperature, and rates of groundwater extraction in the surrounding area. Shallow groundwater is typically encountered in San Carlos at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet below ground surface (bgs).55
Seismic and Seismic-Related Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The Plan is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region and within the general vicinity of three known major active faults. These faults include the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 3.9 miles to the west; the Calaveras Fault, 21.8 miles to the east; and the Hayward Fault, 14.3 miles to the east.56 The Plan is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 57 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction is a temporary loss of shear strength as a result of increased pore pressure due to strong ground shaking or cyclic loading. Liquefaction is defined by saturation of soil and loss of 53 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 USGS. Interactive Fault Map. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquakehazards/faults 57 California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 961
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 143 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
cohesion. It is associated with loose, high-plasticity soils and near-surface groundwater levels. The Plan is mapped within a state-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone.58 Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying soil toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. This movement is often associated with liquefaction and commonly occurs on gentle slopes in seismically active regions. Lateral spread presents a significant hazard to the integrity of buildings and other structures. The Plan is predominately flat and would not be highly susceptible to lateral spreading. However, parcels adjacent to Belmont Creek and/or unnamed drainage channels could be at risk for lateral spreading.

Landslides and Land Subsidence
Landslides are downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials which may be rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials. The Plan is not mapped within a statedesignated Landslide Zone.59 Subsidence problems exist in the diked baylands because of the highly compressible nature of the existing fill. Areas susceptible to earthquake-induced settlement include those areas underlain by thick layers of colluvial material or un-engineered fill. Land subsidence occurred within the low-lying areas, mainly along the Bay margins.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain higher levels of clay which expand and shrink depending on water content, which can present hazards for structures that are not appropriately engineered. There are no expansive soils mapped within the Plan.
60 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments in geologic strata. Most of the City is underlain by Holocene-age coarse-grained alluvium. Holocene age alluvium (less than 11,000 years old) consisting of a mix of clay, silt, sand, and gravel has a low potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Some older Pleistocene age deposits are also present, which have a high potential to contain paleontological resources. In the east parts of the City (including the Plan), the surface deposits are artificial fill consisting of a mix of gravel, sand, Bay mud, broken concrete, cement, asphalt, and solid waste, as much as ten feet thick.
58 California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ 59 Ibid. 60 City of San Carlos. San Carlos General Plan. November 2022. Figure 8-7: Expansive Soils.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 962
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 144 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.7.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on geology and soils, would the project:
1) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? - Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides? Fault Rupture
As discussed in Section 3.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone nor is there evidence of any fault traces in the Plan area.61 While existing faults are located somewhat near the site, such as the San Andreas Fault (3.9 miles) and Hayward 61 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 963
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 145 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Fault (14.3 miles), the proposed project is outside of the fault zones, and significant impacts from fault ruptures would not occur.

Seismic Ground Shaking
As discussed in Section 3.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan is located in a seismically active region.

It can be reasonably anticipated that future development projects in the Plan would experience strong ground shaking during its lifetime. Strong ground shaking from seismic activity could damage structures and infrastructure. Conformance with the CBC would reduce impacts to new development associated with strong seismically induced ground shaking to the maximum extent practicable, under currently accepted engineering practices. The CBC sets forth structural design parameters for buildings to withstand seismic shaking without substantial structural damage.

Section 1803 of the CBC requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation to assess the degree of potential seismic hazards and recommend appropriate design/mitigation measures.

The 2022 CBC contains standards and regulations relating to seismic safety and construction standards for building foundations. Conformance with the CBC, as required by State law, would minimize the potential for damage of new structures and their foundations.

Liquefaction
As discussed in Section 3.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan is mapped within a state-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone. In accordance with General Plan Policy ESPS-1.1, future development projects under the Plan would be required to prepare geotechnical and soils reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist (i.e., liquefaction).

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.

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 seismicallyinduced ground failure.

Compliance with General Plan Policy ESPS-1.1 and the CBC would ensure that implementation of the Plan would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with liquefaction.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 964
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 146 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Landslides
The Plan is generally flat and not mapped within a state-designated Landslide Zone, making the risk of seismically induced landsliding low. Therefore, future development under the Plan would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with landslides.

Compliance with the CBC, SCMC, and General Plan goals, policies, and action would ensure that the future development under the Plan would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death from fault rupture, seismic-related ground shaking or ground failure, or landslides. (Less than Significant Impact)
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Most of the Plan area is developed and level, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion.

The potential for erosion would be highest during the grading and excavation for future development projects. Ground-disturbing activities could increase the exposure of on-site soils to wind and water erosion. Consistent with the requirements of the SCMC, future development projects would be required to prepare erosion and sediment control plans to reduce soil erosion during grading. Further, future development projects greater than one acre would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices for temporary erosion control, which would reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. Therefore, because future development under the Plan is anticipated to occur as infill and redevelopment in urban areas, development is not likely to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Adherence to existing regulatory requirements that include, but are not limited to, the SCMC and NPDES General Construction Permit, would ensure that impacts associated with substantial erosion and loss of topsoil from future development would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As discussed in Section 3.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan area is generally flat and not mapped within a state-designated Landslide Zone, making the risk of seismically induced landsliding low. As noted above, parcels adjacent to Belmont Creek and/or unnamed drainage channels could be at risk for lateral spreading. The Plan is mapped within a state-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone. As discussed under checklist question a), the CBC requires preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigation reports and implementation of the identified recommendations in those reports to avoid and minimize seismic and seismic-related hazards. Further, General Plan Policy ESPS-1.1 requires preparation of a geotechnical and soils report where potentially serious geologic risks exist.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 965
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 147 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Compliance with the CBC, SCMC, and General Plan goals, policies, and action would ensure that the future development under the Plan would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. (Less than Significant Impact) d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? As discussed in Section 3.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan is not underlain by expansive soils.

Regardless, future development projects within the Plan would comply with the CBC and prepare site-specific geotechnical investigations, which would take into account the expansive soils underlying the development site and implement the identified recommendations for building design and engineering practices that address potential impacts from expansive soils. Future development, therefore, would not exacerbate existing conditions related to expansive soils. (Less than Significant Impact)
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
SCMC Chapter 13.04 requires all new construction to connect to the City of San Carlos sanitary sewer system. Wastewater from new development in the Plan would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system serviced by the City and treated at the Silicon Valley Clean Water facility in Redwood Shores. SCMC Chapter 17.36 also requires sanitary sewer facilities that connect to the existing City sewer system be installed to serve each lot and to grades, location, design, and sizes approved by the City Engineer. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (No Impact) f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that geological formations in the City have the potential to contain unique paleontological resources. However, the surface deposits in the Plan are likely artificial fill consisting of a mix of gravel, sand, Bay mud, broken concrete, cement, asphalt, and solid waste, as much as ten feet thick.

Compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 would ensure that any identified paleontological site or feature are not removed from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency.

Future ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) associated with future development in the Plan could uncover fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 966
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 148 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
environments that have not been recorded. According to the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, adherence to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's standards and protocols would ensure the protection of unique paleontological resources during construction of future development. Such protocols include, but are not limited to:
• Excavations within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. • Ground-disturbance work shall cease until a City-approved, qualified paleontologist determines whether the resource requires further study. • The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995) as appropriate, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.  The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. • If is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City of San Carlos for review and approval prior to implementation. • All construction activities shall adhere to the recommendations in the excavation plan.

Consistent with the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, compliance with PRC Section 5097.5 would ensure the protection of unique paleontological resources during construction of future development projects under the Plan. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant geology and soils impact?
The geographic area for cumulative geologic impacts is the Plan and surrounding areas because it is assumed that the effects of ground disturbing activities would be limited to the Plan and surrounding sites. Future cumulative development would be subject to regulations pertaining to seismic safety, including the CBC and SCMC. Compliance with these requirements would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce cumulative, development-related impacts that pertain to seismic shaking, seismic-related ground failure, seismically induced landslides, soil erosion, and unstable soils. Similarly, compliance with relevant CBC and SCMC requirements would minimize the cumulative impacts associated with substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Lastly, future cumulative development would be required to comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 to ensure the protection of unique paleontological resources during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and soils and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 967
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 149 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated April 4, 2025. This report is included as Appendix B to this EIR.

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
GHGs are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential (GWP) and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities (anthropogenic). Natural and anthropogenic sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
• CO2 exchange between the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface • CO2, CH4, and N2O are emitted from wildfires and volcanic eruptions • CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion
• N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops • CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing
An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. Per the 2022 Scoping Plan from CARB, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased by 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two parts per million each year, which will result in increased global temperatures.62 The climates within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and loss of plant and animal species could 62 CARB. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022. Page 3.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 968
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 150 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32 and State Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources. The first Scoping Plan was approved by CARB in 2008 and must be updated at least every five years. Since 2008, there have been two updates to the Scoping Plan.

In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to accelerate 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.
2022 Scoping Plan
On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides a sector-by-sector guide on how to reduce man-made (i.e., anthropogenic) GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 over a 25-year horizon.63 The primary focus of the 2022 Scoping Plan is to reduce the usage of fossil fuels by electricizing the transportation sector, procuring electricity from renewable resources, phasing out natural gas in land use developments, and building transit-oriented communities that encourage multi-modal transportation. If implemented successfully, the 2022 Scoping Plan would not only reduce GHG emissions but also reduce smog-forming air pollution (NOx) by 71 percent and reduce fossil fuel demand by 94 percent. The 2022 Scoping Plan also details natural carbon capture and storage process along with mechanical carbon capture programs to address the remaining 15 of anthropogenic GHG emissions that will remain post-2045. To meet these goals, CARB also includes a revised goal of reducing state GHG emissions 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 63 CARB. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022. Page 5.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 969
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 151 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Senate Bill 375 and Plan Bay Area 2050
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the MTC partnered with ABAG, the Bay Area Air District, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2050.

Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified priority development areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth. 64 Play Bay Area 2050 includes a goal to increase the number of households that live within 0.5 mile of frequent transit by 2050. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use patterns, which together are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from 50 percent in 2015 to 33 percent in 2050, resulting in a decrease in GHG emissions. Plan Bay Area 2050 also provides a path to emissions reductions via goals to expand TDM initiatives that support and augment employers’ commute programs.

SB 100
SB 100, known as The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, was adopted on September 10, 2018.

The overall goal is to have all retail electricity sold in California be procured from 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon resources by the year 2045. SB 100 also modified the renewables portfolio standard to 50 percent by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030.

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 64 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050.

October 21, 2021. Page 20.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 970
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 152 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
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.

Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation
To continue reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions in the transportation sector, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations (Resolution 22-12) on August 25, 2022. The new regulation requires that by 2035 all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zeroemission vehicles. This regulation bans the sale of new gasoline or diesel passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs in California from automakers. Beginning in 2026, 35 percent of new vehicle sales must be zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid EVs and that percentage will increase per year. By 2030, 70 percent of new vehicle sales will be zero-emissions vehicles and by the 2035 model year 100 percent of new vehicle sales will be zero-emissions. CARB will limit the use of plug-in hybrid EVs in the percentage requirements to keep the manufacturing of zero-emissions as the primary goal.

Existing gasoline cars can continue to be driven and sold as used cars beyond 2035. CARB is required to track and report on the zero-emissions vehicle market development annually.

California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 and Part 6 The CALGreen Code is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.65 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that incorporate planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are applicable to residential and nonresidential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2022 CALGreen Code) was effective as of January 1, 2023.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the CEC. This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non-residential developments. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The 2022 Energy Code replaced the 2019 Energy Code as of January 1, 2023. There are new 2022 standards for single-family residences, multi-family 65 Refer to https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 971
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 153 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
residences, and non-residential uses.66,67,68 Major changes include electric-ready single-family and multi-family residence and solar photovoltaic systems and energy storage systems for residential and commercial developments.

Requirements for EV charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are regularly updated on a three-year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set of mandatory standards required for new development, as well as two more voluntary standards known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The 2022 CALGreen standards require deployment of additional EV chargers in various building types, including multi-family residential, hotel, and nonresidential land uses. They include requirements for both EV capable parking spaces and the installation of EV supply equipment for multi-family residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen standards also include requirements for both EV readiness and the actual installation of EV chargers.

CALGreen also requires new construction and demolition projects to have a diversion of at least 65 percent of the construction waste generated.

Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 Clean Air Plan prepared by BAAQMD includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

Bay Area Air District CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans
In April 2022, the Bay Area Air District Board of Directors adopted the Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. The report includes the Bay Area Air District’s thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a proposed project or plan will have a significant impact on climate change and provides substantial evidence to support these thresholds. The April 2022 GHG thresholds replace the GHG thresholds set forth in the May 2017 Bay Area Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and represent what is required of new land use development projects and plans to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
66 California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Single-Family Residential.” Revised July 15, 2022. Accessed August 28, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022_Single-family_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf. 67 California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Multifamily.” Revised August 4, 2022. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 08/2022_Multifamily_Whats_new_Summary_ADA.pdf. 68 California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Nonresidential.” Revised August 4, 2022. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 08/2022_Nonresidential_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 972
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 154 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating greenhouse gas impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
LU-1.8 As San Carlos’ Climate Action Plan is updated over time, continue to include land use goals and measures in the Plan that contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

LU-8.18 Encourage “green building” practices in new development and redevelopment, such as those that make a building more energy efficient and reduces its effect on human health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, maintenance and operation.

EM-7.3 Participate in regional, State and federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts resulting from climate change.

EM-7.6 Support greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction measures and climate change resiliency strategies that are cost effective and help create an environmentally sustainable, livable and equitable community. The cost of implementation to the City and the private sector shall be considered prior to the adoption of any GHG reduction strategy.

EM-9.2 Support on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production such as solar panels, wind turbines and biomass facilities.

EM-9.5 Design all new construction and major remodels of government agency buildings to relevant green building standards.

EM-9.6 Encourage new private construction and major remodels to be designed to meet or exceed Green Uniform Building Code requirements.

EM-9.7 Implement energy efficiency in City-owned and -operated facilities to reduce municipal energy costs and serve as a model for the community.

San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
The 2021 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 emissionreduction 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 2021 CMAP relied on growth assumptions from the California Department of Finance and ABAG.69 69 The CMAP assumed a service population (jobs plus population) of 69,040 by 2050. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR assumes a service population of 93,770 by 2045.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 973
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 155 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The CMAP is intended to be a ‘qualified’ Climate Action Plan as defined in the Air District Guidelines.

However, 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 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, which implements growth planned for the Plan area as set forth in the 2045 General Plan Reset, would facilitate population growth and development beyond what was accounted for in the 2021 CMAP.

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 GHG emissions as follows:
• Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, list requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, state organic recycling laws, and Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016 to reduce solid waste generated in their jurisdictions.
• Chapter 15.20, Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations while promoting public health and safety on the installation and use of such charging stations.
• Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems, allows for an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems.
• Chapter 15.04, Technical Building Codes, adopts the Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code (2022 Edition) and Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen. Within this code, certain regulations are outlined about electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and how Electric vehicle supply equipment shall be installed in accordance with the CALGreen. Additionally, this code amends CALGreen Chapter 4, Residential Mandatory Measures, and Chapter 5, Nonresidential Mandatory Measures, to require all-electric buildings for new construction and qualifying alteration projects. If either of these criteria are met within a three-year period, measured from the date of the most recent previously obtained permit final date, the project shall be subject to the all-electric buildings requirements. Exceptions include:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 974
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 156 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
o All residential buildings except Multi-Unit Residential buildings as defined by SCMC Section 18.40.020 may contain non-electric indoor and outdoor Cooking Appliances and indoor and outdoor Fireplaces.
o If an applicant establishes by substantial evidence that an All-Electric Building is infeasible for the project due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances particular to the project, then the Building Official may grant a modification. The design professional shall submit findings demonstrating a unique reason that makes the technical code impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the technical code, the modification shall be as narrow as possible so as to effectuate as much of a reduction in natural gas as possible, and that such modification does not lessen health, life safety, and fire safety requirements or any degree of structural integrity. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2. o If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2. o Laboratory areas with Non-Residential Buildings may contain non-electric Space Conditioning Systems. To take advantage of this exception, an applicant shall provide third party verification that the All-Electric space heating requirement is not cost effective and feasible. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2. o Non-residential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant open to the public or an employee commercial kitchen containing cooking facilities with the purpose of preparing and serving food for employees and visitors may apply to the Building Official for a modification to install gas-fueled cooking appliances. This exception does not apply to typical employee breakrooms or other self-service kitchens. This request must be based on a business-related reason to cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source o If an applicant establishes by substantial evidence that an All-Electric Building is infeasible for the project due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances particular to the project, then the Building Official may grant a modification. The design professional shall submit findings demonstrating a unique reason that makes the technical code impractical, that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the technical code, the modification shall be as narrow as possible so as to effectuate as much of a reduction in natural gas as possible, and that such modification does not lessen health, life safety, and fire safety requirements or any degree of structural integrity. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1.3.2. o If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 975
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 157 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
applicable to the building under the Energy Efficiency Standards using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the local enforcing agency may grant a modification. The applicant shall comply with Section

5.106.1.3.2.
• Chapter 18.18, Landscaping, preserves, maintains, and provides regulations of trees for the health and welfare of the City; provide habitat; counteract the pollutants in the air; and maintain the climatic balance.
• Chapter 18.25, Transportation Demand Management, aims to reduce amount of traffic generated by new development and promotion of more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities.

Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns.

Emissions associated with existing uses in the City emit 510,296 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from the residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, waste, water, and municipal sectors.70 This equates to 9.9 MTCO2e per service population.

The Plan area is developed with a mix of office, research and development, lighting industrial and warehousing uses. There are no housing units within the Plan area currently. Most of the GHG emissions associated with the existing uses on-site result from the production of electricity and burning of natural gas to power the buildings for lighting, heating, and cooling, and the emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the sites.

3.8.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, would the project:
1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Thresholds of Significance
The threshold of significance for plans (e.g., General Plans, Climate Action Plans, and similar longterm community wide plans) is to meet the state’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 70 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 976
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 158 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045 or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

The threshold of significance for land use development projects is to either A) incorporate project design elements and achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan or B) be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 (b). Table 3.8-1 below summarizes the GHG thresholds for plans and land use projects.

Table 3.8-1: Bay Area Air District GHG Significance Thresholds Plan-Level Thresholds
A. Meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045; or
B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Project-Level Thresholds
A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts. b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.; or
B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Project Impacts
a) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction
Construction GHG emissions estimates are not included as part of this analysis due to the speculative nature and lack of a Bay Area Air District or industry-standard model for calculating emissions on a program-level basis. In addition, neither the City nor the Bay Area Air District have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. The Bay Area Air

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 977
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 159 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
District encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable, including using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet, using local building materials of at least 10 percent, and recycling or reusing at least 65 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

Future redevelopment under the Plan would comply with CALGreen and the City’s construction and demolition waste diversion regulations to recycle or reuse at least 60 percent of the future projects’ nonhazardous waste. For these reasons, future projects would result in less than significant construction GHG emissions.

Operation
Long-term operational GHG emissions from the build out of the Plan would result from area emissions (i.e., emissions from architectural coatings), energy consumption, mobile emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the Plan area, and emissions from solid waste generation and water usage.

The CalEEMod model was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully implemented Plan upon buildout in 2045. the net increase in annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the Plan Area is estimated to be 28,664 MT of CO2e.

The primary sources of GHG emissions are from vehicle travel, energy consumption, and solid waste. The modeling results using CalEEMod do not incorporate the effect of CMAP strategies and future regulations that would reduce GHG emissions. For example, CalEEMod results are based on regulations in place in 2020 for on-road vehicles and current emission rates of electricity providers.

Under new State laws and CMAP strategies, these emissions are anticipated to decrease substantially beyond those levels predicted by CalEEMod. However, emissions may increase under the Plan because there would be more workers and residents in the area. Redevelopment in the Plan would also lead to an increase in vehicle emissions due to the increase in vehicle travel. While the Plan is considered a transit supportive project that is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, the amount of expected growth would increase vehicle travel over existing levels by approximately 203 percent.

GHG emissions associated with energy consumption would increase. The level of this increase would depend on whether new projects are constructed all electric or include natural gas appliances. The CalEEMod modeling assumed new residential uses would be electrified.

Commercial and industrial uses were assumed to use natural gas.

Solid waste generation is anticipated to increase due to the increased population supported by the Plan. CalEEMod emissions associated with solid waste are likely overestimated as various programs are designed to reduce solid waste and reduce emissions from solid waste transport and land fill.

The CalEEMod model does not consider these future reductions in emissions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 978
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 160 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Plan-Level Impact
Pursuant to the Bay Area Air District thresholds (refer to Section 3.8.2.1), to have a less than significant GHG impact, the Plan must meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and maintain a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (Threshold 1) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy (Threshold 2). The City has adopted a local GHG reduction strategy (CMAP) that meets the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As noted above, 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, which implements growth planned as part of the 2045 General Plan Reset, would facilitate population growth and development beyond what was accounted for in the CMAP, which was based upon growth assumptions from the California Department of Finance and ABAG. 71 Therefore, the 2045
General Plan Reset EIR includes Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which directs the City to update the CMAP within three years of certification of the Final EIR. 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 under AB 1279.

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.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR committed the City to implement the following mitigation measure. The General Plan Reset EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City prepares a CMAP update to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term year 2045 GHG reduction goal and State's carbon neutrality goal set by AB 1279. However, given the growth in population and employment within the City and the magnitude of GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target, it is unknown at this time whether targets contained in the future CMAP update will be achieved and therefore GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable.

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. 71 The CMAP assumed a service population (jobs plus population) of 69,040 by 2050. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR assumes a service population of 93,770 by 2045.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 979
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 161 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
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. 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
Project-Level Impacts
The determination above would not preclude future development projects under the Plan from identifying less than significant GHG impacts. If future development projects are consistent with the Bay Area Air District’s project-level thresholds, then the project would be considered to have a lessthan-significant impact on GHG emissions per Bay Area Air District GHG Threshold A (refer to Section 3.8.2.1). In addition, since the Plan has a 20-year buildout horizon, following completion of the CMAP update that is required under General Plan Mitigation Measure GHG-1, future development projects would have the option of demonstrating compliance with the CMAP in accordance with Bay Area Air District GHG Threshold B. However, in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision regarding Berkeley’s natural gas ban, the City cannot enforce portions of the reach codes requiring new development projects to be all electric powered, as the court found federal law preempts a local jurisdiction from banning natural gas appliances and infrastructure. As a result, future projects within the Plan area that are developed with natural gas infrastructure would be considered to have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions, unless the CMAP had accounted for the natural gas usage proposed by the project and the project adhered to all applicable CMAP requirements to allow the project to be found consistent with and covered by the CMAP.

As noted above, it is unknown at this time whether targets contained in the future CMAP update (required under General Plan Mitigation Measure GHG-1) will be achieved, whether the CMAP will account for any natural gas use in future development, and therefore GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 980
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 162 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
This discussion analyzes whether the proposed project would conflict with the City’s CMAP, as well as with other applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including CARB’s Scoping Plan and MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050.

San Carlos Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
As noted above, the 2021 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. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR includes Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which directs the City to update the CMAP within three years of certification of the Final EIR.

A summary of the Plan’s consistency with the current 2021 CMAP is provided in Table 3.8-2 below.

Table 3.8-2: CMAP Consistency Analysis
Reduction Goal/Applicable Strategy Consistency with CMAP Goal 1: Reduce energy use
Strategy 1: Regional Energy Conservation and
Efficiency Programs. Promote available energy
efficiency and conservation opportunities, incentives,
and technical assistance for businesses and residents.

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

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

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

Additionally, Chapter 15.16, Streamlined Permitting
Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems,
provides a streamlined solar energy system permitting
process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB
2188 for cost-effective solar energy systems
installations.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 981
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 163 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Reduction Goal/Applicable Strategy Consistency with CMAP Strategy 5: Building Codes. Advance electrification
through local amendments to the California Building
Code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encourage development of mixed-use projects,
higher-density housing, and job growth within the
General Plan’s recognized Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) corridor (Planning Areas 1, 2, and
3) while being mindful of surrounding uses.

Consistent. The Plan supports a variety of housing and
employment types that would encourage better
connectivity to employment and commercial uses.

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

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.17
Transportation, the Plan (consistent with the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master 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.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 982
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 164 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Reduction Goal/Applicable Strategy Consistency with CMAP Strategy 15: Public Transportation. Support
improvements to public transit routes, services, and
facilities to facilitate longer distance travel.

Consistent. 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, as describe above. These
improvements would encourage connections to
nearby rail and bus transit.

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

Consistent. As 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. Further, as
described in Section 2.3.7 of this EIR, all new
development in the Plan would be subject to TDM
requirements, with exceptions for 100% affordable
housing developments, as well as small housing
projects and small non-residential developments.

Consistent with C/CAG’s TDM Policy, it is assumed that
all new development, with noted exceptions, would
achieve a 25 percent vehicle trip reduction.

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

Consistent. Future development would be required to
be constructed in accordance with current State and
City building codes, as well as SCMC Chapter 15.04,
Technical Building Codes. In addition, Chapter 15.20,
Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations, also promotes the use of electric
vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined
permitting process for electric vehicle charging
stations.

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

Consistent. General Plan Policies EM-11.7 and LU-3.10
would support programs to reduce vehicle trips
associated with transporting students and safe,
walkable environments to access schools.

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

Consistent. General Plan Action EM-11.5 and CSH-3.4,
and Policy EM-11.8, encourages transit providers to
utilize vehicles with low polluting technologies and
ridesharing programs.

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

Encourage hybrid and clean-fuel construction and
landscaping equipment citywide.

Consistent. General Plan Policy EM-6.3, EM-6.6, and
LU-8.18 supports reduction of PM10 and exhaust
emissions from construction activities through better
construction practices. Policy PR-4.12 and Action EM6.3 encourages exploration of different landscaping equipment to reduce contribution to air pollution.

Goal 7: Become a zero-waste community

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 983
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 165 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Reduction Goal/Applicable Strategy Consistency with CMAP Strategy 27: Construction and Demolition Waste.

Increase the amount of waste recycled during
construction and demolition of buildings.

Consistent. Future development projects would be
required to comply with AB 939. SCMC Chapter 8.05,
Recycling and Diversion of Construction and
Demolition Debris, contains diversion
requirements and waste management plan as part of
the building or demolition permit process in alignment
with AB 939. In addition, General Plan Action EM-12.3,
EM-12.5, and EM-12.6 would require a construction
and demolition debris waste plan to maximize
recycling rates and encourage practices, such as
building deconstruction or recycled pavement.

Goal 8: Reduce community-wide water use
Strategy 31: Water-efficient Retrofits. Encourage
water-efficient retrofits of existing buildings by
working with water providers and regional agencies.

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

Strategy 32: Water-wise Landscaping. Promote
drought-tolerant and fire wise landscaping.

Consistent. Future development would be required to
be constructed in accordance with current State and
City building codes, which include requirements
related to water use for landscaping. This includes the California Water Code, California’s Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, and SCMC

18.18, Landscaping, to implement water-conserving
irrigation practices to conserve water and energy.

Additionally, General Plan Policy EM-5.4 encourages
the use of drought-tolerant plans and efficient
watering techniques.

Strategy 33: Graywater and Recycled Water. Promote
graywater and recycled water systems.

Consistent. Future development would be required to
be constructed in accordance with current State and
City building codes, including the California Water
Code, California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance standards, and SCMC Chapter 18.18,
Landscaping, to implement water features using
recycled water. Additionally, General Plan Policy EM5.5, and Action EM-5.6 and EM-5.8 would promote the use of recycled water distribution system for
landscaping and other non-potable water uses.

As summarized above in Table 3.8-2 above, future development under the Plan would be consistent with the strategies in the City’s CMAP. 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. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR includes Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which directs the City to update the CMAP within three years of certification of the Final EIR.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 984
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 166 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
CARB Scoping Plan
Future development projects would be required to adhere to the statewide programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. For example, new buildings in the Plan would be required to meet the CALGreen and Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits.

Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 establishes a course for reducing per capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified PDAs. 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. Further, as described in Section 2.3.7 of this EIR, all new development in the Plan would be subject to TDM requirements, with exceptions for 100% affordable housing, as well as small housing developments and small non-residential developments. Consistent with C/CAG’s TDM Policy, it is assumed that all new development, with noted exceptions, would achieve a 25 percent vehicle trip reduction.

The Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact?
As discussed above, GHG emissions have a broader, global impact; therefore, if a project would result in a significant project-level GHG impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative GHG impact. The discussion above under checklist questions a) and b) show that the Plan would have a significant GHG emissions impact. Therefore, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative GHG emissions impact. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 985
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 167 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, dated January 11, 2023. The report is included as Appendix D to this EIR.

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Overview
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 986
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 168 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA accomplished the following objectives:
• Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
• Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
• Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:
• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be completed only at sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List.

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.72
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle to the grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization, phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement 72 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed September 3, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 987
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 169 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.73
Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).74
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property. Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off-site consequences if accidentally released. The San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos-containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of nonfriable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement.

The EPA began phasing out use of friable asbestos products in 1973 and issued a ban in 1978 on manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of some asbestos-containing products and new uses of asbestos products.
75 The EPA is currently considering a proposed ban on on-going use of 73 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recoveryact. 74 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. 75 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protect-public-exposure-asbestos

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 988
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 170 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
asbestos.76 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978. Removal of older structures with lead-based paint is subject to requirements outlined by the Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demolition activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead-based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

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

Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
PCBs were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment.

PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES MRP by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment methodology for applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.77 Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are currently modifying demolition permit processes and implementing PCB screening protocols to comply with Provision C.12.f. Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a 76United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protect-public-exposure-asbestos 77 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 989
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 171 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
demolition permit. Single family homes and wood-frame structures are exempt from these requirements.

Santa Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission
The Santa Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), comprised of the San Mateo County C/CAG Board, is responsible for guiding the public safety of airports and ability for them to operate presently and in the future. The jurisdiction of the ALUC is limited to a review of new land uses that might fall within an ALUC zone. The ALUC developed the Comprehensive ALUCP for the San Carlos Airport which was adopted on November 2009 and amended in October 2015. The ALUCP is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the aircraft occupants. The ALUCP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect the airport’s continued operation. Specifically, the ALUCP seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of the ALUCP is intended to prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the airport and allow for its development in accordance with the current City plans. The aviation activity forecast for the airport was updated to reflect the existing aviation activity and provide at least a 20-year forecast of activity. The updated aviation activity forecast formed the basis for preparation of the 2035 aircraft noise contours.

The ALUCP requires proposed land use policy changes and land development proposals in the airport vicinity be compatible with continued aircraft operation and public safety. The ALUCP designates six safety zones,78 as shown in Exhibit 4-3 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport.79 The Plan area is located within Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone.

Additionally, the ALUCP establishes a planning boundary around the airport called the Airport Influence Area (AIA) which is based upon the runway orientation and associated noise impacts of overflight aircraft. The ALCUP for the San Carlos Airport delineates two Airport Influence Areas (AIA), Area A and Area B, within proximity to the airport. As a requirement for development located in Area A, the presence of existing airports within two miles of the property must be disclosed in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale. For development located within Area B of the AIA, the C/CAG Board shall exercise its statutory duty to review proposed land development proposals, among other plans, ordinances, amendments, and actions. The entire Plan is located in Area B.

The ALUCP includes compatibility criteria and policies for safety, airspace protection, and overflight that apply to designated activities occurring within the airport’s safety zones and AIA. To evaluate consistency with safety compatibility criteria, the ALUCP Table 4-4 lists land uses that are compatible, conditionally compatible, and incompatible. Additionally, California Public Utilities Code 78 San Carlos Airport Safety Zones include Zone 1 – Runway Protection Zone, Zone 2 – Inner Approach/Departure Zone, Zone 3 – Inner Turning, Zone 4 – Outer Approach/Departure Zone, Zone 5 – Sideline Zone, and Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone. 79City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. October 2015.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 990
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 172 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 21676 requires San Carlos’ and San Mateo County’s General Plan land use designations to be in conformance with the land use plans and policies of the ALUCP.

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

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

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

San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
ESPS-5.1 Prohibit uses involving the manufacturing of hazardous materials throughout the city.

Hazardous materials are defined in Chapter 6.95, Section 25501 0-1 of the Health and Safety Code. This policy applies only to the direct manufacture of hazardous substances. It does not apply to the storage or use of such materials in conjunction with permitted commercial and industrial uses.

ESPS-5.2 Require producers of and users of hazardous materials in San Carlos to conform to all local, State, and federal regulations regarding the production, disposal and transportation of these materials.

ESPS-5.3 Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria and standards enforcement.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 991
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 173 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
ESPS-5.4 Mitigate indoor air intrusion potential in areas of new development or redevelopment where the property is located above known volatile compound plumes.

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.

ESPS-5.7 Prohibit new non-residential uses that are known to release or emit toxic waste at levels that are harmful to human health while continuing to allow life science, research and development, medical, and other necessary services such as dry cleaners.

ESPS-5.8 Require the preparation of emergency response plans as part of use applications for all large generators and users of hazardous waste as required by federal law.

ESPS-5.11 Encourage the use of green building practices to reduce potentially hazardous materials in construction materials.

ESPS-6.1 Maintain land use and development in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport that are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria and guidelines contained in the adopted Airport/Land Use Compatibility Plan for the environs of San Carlos Airport, including noise, safety, height, and avigation easement requirements.

ESPS-6.2 Submit proposed land use policy actions (general plans/amendments, specific plans/amendments, rezonings, etc.) and related development plans, if any, that affect property located within the Area B portion of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for San Carlos Airport, to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review/action, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), prior to final action by the City.

ESPS-12.2 Ensure the San Carlos municipal code protects development from rising groundwater levels.

This may include measures to protect underground utilities from constant submersion, the construction of building foundations and roadbeds in saturated soils, the protection of underground structures, and the management of groundwater dewatered during construction.

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 hazards and hazardous materials as follows:
• Section 2.28.080, Emergency Plan, states that the City of San Carlos Disaster Council is responsible for the development of the City’s emergency plan, which shall provide the effective mobilization of all the resources of the City, both public and private, to meet any condition constituting a local emergency.
• Title 13, Public Services, requires that individual business plans for any facility subject to the hazardous materials inventory response program include a program for compliance.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 992
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 174 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Title 18, Zoning, regulates what types of properties are permitted to use hazardous materials and specifically regulates the location of these types of facilities to ensure that they do not endanger the general public and that they are separate from sensitive land uses such as schools.

San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan
The City Council adopted the City of San Carlos Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in March 2022.

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

Existing Conditions
Site History
The Plan area consisted predominately of undeveloped land between the late 1800s and early 1940s, with the exception of a few residences. The eastern portion of the Plan historically consisted of marshland and Belmont Creek traversed the Plan, generally from west to east.

By the mid-1940s, a few commercial buildings were constructed within the Plan, mainly along Old County Road. By 1953, the marshland on the eastern portion of the Plan was filled. A gradual increase in commercial development occurred in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s, most sites within the Plan were developed for commercial use.

On-Site Sources of Contamination
Multiple businesses in the Plan appear to have handled and stored hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PCBs. As summarized in Table 3.9-1 and shown in Figure 3.9-1, spill incidents have been reported at several sites in the Plan.

As a result, properties have impacted soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 993
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 175 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.9-1: Summary of Known On-Site Sources of Contamination Map
Id. Database Name
(Address)
Status Potential
Contaminants of
Concern
Potential Media of
Concern
4 Circuits Facility
(641 Quarry Road)
Open Cleanup
Program Site VOCs Soil, soil vapor and groundwater
8 Putnam Honda and
Tiegel Family Trust
(495 Bragato Road
or 268 Industrial
Road)
Open Cleanup
Program Site PCBs, TCBs, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and
VOCs
Soil and groundwater
9 Delta Star
(0270 Industrial
Road
Open Cleanup
Program
Site/Closed
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
(LUST) case
PCBs, TCBs, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and
VOCs
Soil and groundwater
13 Peninsula
Laboratories (601
Taylor Way)
Open Cleanup
Program Site VOCs Soil, soil vapor, and
groundwater
7 Former Spacesonic
(266 Industrial Road)
Closed Cleanup
Program Site Metals and VOCs Soil, soil vapor, and groundwater 14 EIMAC-Varian
(301 Industrial Road)
Closed Cleanup
Program Site
VOCs, PCBs,
petroleum, and metals Groundwater
15 B&H Technical
Ceramics (390
Industrial Road)
Open LUST case Petroleum
hydrocarbon and
VOCs
Soil vapor and
groundwater
1 Matagrano, Inc.
(610 Quarry Road)
Closed LUST case* Petroleum
hydrocarbon Soil and groundwater
2 Sam Trans/Ickler
Construction
(599 Quarry Road,
also identified as
580, 585 and 591
Quarry Road)
Closed LUST case* Unknown Soil
3 Olympian Cardlock
Stn. (200 Industrial
Road also identified
as 220 Industrial)
Closed LUST case* Petroleum
hydrocarbon
Groundwater
5 Carey Property
(580 Bragato Road)
Closed LUST case* Petroleum
hydrocarbon
Groundwater
6 Bragato Paving
(535 Bragato Road)
Closed LUST case* Petroleum
hydrocarbon
Soil and groundwater
10 PG&E
(275 Industrial Road)
Closed LUST case* Petroleum
hydrocarbon
Soil and groundwater

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 994
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 176 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Map
Id. Database Name
(Address)
Status Potential
Contaminants of
Concern
Potential Media of
Concern
11 Story’s Brake Service
(1670 Old County
Road; currently 235
or 239 Old County
Road)
Closed LUST case* Petroleum
hydrocarbon
Soil
12 Parmel Properties
(267 Old County
Road)
Closed LUST case*
Unknown Groundwater
Notes:

Bold = Site management requirements were stipulated in the regulatory agency case closure documentation that consisted of the following (or substantially similar) language: As a result of residual contaminant concentrations, changes in land use or removal of soil and groundwater from the affected area may create a risk. Therefore, any proposed change in land use or proposed soil or groundwater removal activity at or in close proximity to the subject site must be submitted to the San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) for review under government code section 65850.2 so GPP can evaluate whether the residual contaminates will likely pose a risk to public health and the environment if the proposed activities are implemented. * Residual contaminant concentrations potentially remain at each of these properties.

Source: Cornerstone Earth Group. Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan. January 11, 2023.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 995
0 350 700
General area of reported groundwater contaminant plumes that have extended beyond source property boundaries.

Queried where the extent of impact has not been established.

Reported Open LUST or CPS case.

Reported Closed LUST or CPS case.

Legend
##
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
??
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Former Baron-Blakeslee (Purex) facility
511 O’Neill Avenue
Brusco Property
248 Harbor Boulevard
Source: Cornerstone Earth Group, January 2023. 0 350 700 Feet SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION WITHIN THE PLAN FIGURE 3.9-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 177 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 178 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
As shown in Table 3.9-1, identified contaminants have included VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and/or PCBs. Several of the associated LUST and Cleanup Program cases have been closed by the overseeing regulatory agencies. One LUST case and four Cleanup Program cases remain open; at these parcels, characterization, monitoring and/or remediation activities are on-going and are being conducted under regulatory agency oversight. At the closed LUST and Cleanup Program sites, residual contamination may remain in soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater.

For the Delta Star property (Map Id. #9) at 270 Industrial Road, a Land Use Covenant was established for a portion of the property where soil with PCB concentrations exceeding the established cleanup standards was left in place and capped. Among other provisions, the Land Use Covenant prohibits certain sensitive uses of the property (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, day care facilities, etc.) unless approved by the DTSC.

Off-Site Sources of Contamination
The Screening Level I ESA identified two off-site (i.e. outside the Plan area) sources of contamination of concern associated with releases of VOCs from the Purex Industries property (511 O’Neill Avenue) and the Brusco Property (248 Harbor Boulevard) that may have led to contamination affecting properties within the Plan area. Characterization, monitoring and remedial efforts are on-going at these facilities, which are open Cleanup Program sites under DEH and Water Board oversight.

Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Due to the age of the existing buildings within the Plan, ACMs and lead-based paints may be present. In addition, materials including lamps, thermostats, light switches that contain mercury, batteries from exit signs, emergency lights, smoke alarms, lighting ballasts which contain PCBs, lead pipes, and roof vent flashings could result in risk to human health and the environment if improperly managed.

Airport Hazards
San Carlos Airport is located as close as 1,100 feet to the east of the Plan area. The Plan area is subject to Federal Aviation Regulations and the ALUCP, which provides policies and regulations pertaining to land use that may affect, or be affected by airport operations, including restrictions for the height of structures within the ALUCP area and/or elements that may affect normal aviation operations or that could create a safety hazard for aircraft. The Plan is located within the San Carlos Airport AIA, specifically within Area B. Development proposals within the AIA are required to be reviewed by the ALUC.

The ALCUP is divided into six safety zones. The majority of the Plan is located in Zone 6, however, a small portion of the PAMF site is within Zone 3. Commercial (i.e., office and retail), manufacturing, R&D, industrial uses, and residential are all considered compatible uses in Safety Zone 6.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 997
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 179 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The ALUCP establishes policies height/airspace protection and overflight areas. The Plan is located within the overflight notification zone.

Wildland Fire Hazards
The Plan is not located within a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity.80

3.9.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hazards and hazardous materials, would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 6) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
80 CalFire. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed August 30, 2024. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 998
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 180 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction
Future construction of development projects in the Plan would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and fluids. All hazardous materials would be transported, contained, stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and would be handled in compliance with all applicable standards and regulations.

Construction-related hazardous materials use would be temporary, and does not constitute routine transport, use, or disposal. The proposed project would include demolition of the existing building on-site. Any hazardous materials (e.g., debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings) that would be removed from the site during project construction would be properly disposed of.

Operation
Existing uses within the Plan use, handle, generate, and store hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Existing uses also use and store fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and consumer cleaning chemicals. Future uses could also use, handle, generate, and store similar type hazardous materials as existing, ongoing uses.

The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by future residents and commercial and industrial tenants/owners would be required to comply with existing regulations that apply to the uses that involve transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials include RCRA, CERCLA, and CCR Title 22 (refer to Section 3.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework). SCMC Title 13 also requires that individual business plans for any facility subject to the hazardous materials inventory response program include a program for compliance. Future development may include diesel generators to be used in case of emergency; under Health and Safety Code 25507(a)(1)(A), new development would be required to establish and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan if the amount of diesel fuel stored on-site exceeds 55 gallons. Adherence with the aforementioned regulations and processes would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by future development under the Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

As discussed above, implementation of the Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 999
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 181 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Demolition
As discussed in Section 3.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, due to the age of the existing buildings within the Plan, ACMs, lead-based paints, and PCBs may be present and could pose a risk to human health and the environment if improperly managed. Future development would adhere to CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 and MRP Provision C.12.f to reduce impacts from ACMs, LBP, and PCBs. Therefore, with compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, hazardous impacts during demolition would be less than significant.

Subsurface Contamination
Table 3.9-1 summarizes known sources of contamination in the Plan. As discussed in Section 3.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, properties in the Plan have impacted soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater due to past and current operations in the Plans that involve the handling and storing of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, VOCs and PCBs. Additionally, there are two sources of contamination from outside the Plan area associated with releases of VOCs from the Purex Industries property (511 O’Neill Avenue) and the Brusco Property (248 Harbor Boulevard) that may have led to VOC contamination affecting properties within the northern part of the Plan area.

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.

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1000
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 182 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
States are involved, and collaborate with authorities to ensure all relevant remediation requirements are met.

Compliance with the above General Plan policies would ensure that future development under the Plan does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the disturbance of contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. (Less than Significant Impact) c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Plan. The Plan would be built out over a 20-year period so it is possible that a future project could be located within 0.25 mile of a school, if a school were to be located near the Plan in the future. As discussed under checklist question a), future development would comply with existing regulations that apply to the uses that involve transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials include RCRA, CERCLA, and CCR Title 22 (refer to Section 3.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework). SCMC Title 13 also requires that individual business plans for any facility subject to the hazardous materials inventory response program include a program for compliance. During future demolition and construction activities, adherence to existing federal, State, and local regulations (including General Plan policies) would ensure that future development under the Plan does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, future development under the Plan would not result in the emission of hazardous emissions or exposure of an existing or proposed school to hazardous materials, substances, or waste. (Less than Significant Impact)
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Within the Plan area, there are 15 cleanup sites and/or sites listed in the LUST database (refer to Table 3.9-1), which is one of the lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the Cortese List). Three of the 15 cleanup and/or LUST sites are proposed to be reclassified and rezoned for residential uses (refer to Map Id. 6, 13, and 15). Site 6 does not have any land use restrictions in place if the land use on site were to change. Both sites 13 and 15 are still active and it is possible that eventual case closure documentation will include regulatory conditions that need to be satisfied if the land use were changed to residential.

As discussed under checklist question b), future development at these sites could encounter and disturb soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, VOCs and PCBs. Consistent with General Plan policies ESPS-5.3, ESPS-5.5 and ESPS-5.6, future development projects would be required to complete site assessments and mitigate hazard exposure during environmental review. Any required remediation would be completed under the oversight of the appropriate oversight agency to ensure that all remediation requirements are met.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1001
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 183 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Additionally, all dewatering activities, including the dewatering of contaminated groundwater, would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the RWQCB and the City’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that contaminated groundwater is disposed of properly and is not discharged into the storm drain system (refer to Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality).

Adherence with the aforementioned regulations and processes would ensure that future development at sites on the Cortese List under the Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Less than Significant Impact) e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Plan is located within the San Carlos Airport AIA, specifically within Area B. Development proposals within Area B of the AIA are required to be reviewed by the ALUC. The ALUCP focuses on the four primary land use compatibility concerns: 1) aircraft noise, 2) safety of persons on the ground, 3) airspace protection/building heights, and 4) aircraft overflights.

Aircraft Noise
As discussed in Section 3.13 Noise, the eastern portion of the Plan lies within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, however the entire Plan Area is outside of the boundary for 65 CNEL. Future residential development could potentially fall within the 55 dBA CNEL of the San Carlos Airport. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR found that adherence to General Plan Policies NOI-1.11 and NOI-1.13, SCMC Sections 18.21.050-F and 18.21.150-C, and compliance with land use compatibility standards of the San Carlos ALUCP, would ensure aircraft noise impacts associated with implementation of the Plan are considered less than significant.

Safety of Persons on the Ground
The objective of the ALUCP safety compatibility criteria is to minimize the potential number of residents and workers exposed to hazards related to aircraft operations and accidents. The ALCUP is divided into six safety zones. These zones include the (1) Runway Protection Zone, (2) Inner Approach/Departure Zone, (3) Inner Turning Zone, (4) Outer Approach/Departure Zone, (5) Sideline Zone, and (6) Traffic Pattern Zone. The majority of the Plan is located in Zone 6, however, a small portion of the PAMF site is within Zone 3. Commercial (i.e., office and retail), manufacturing, R&D, industrial uses, and residential are all considered compatible uses in Safety Zone 6. Schools and daycares would be conditionally compatible in Zone 6.

Airspace Protection/Building Heights
San Carlos Airport is located as close as 1,100 feet to the east of the Plan area. Developers or other parties that propose buildings or alterations to buildings greater than 200 feet in height (above grade), or structures within 10,000 linear feet of the airport that would penetrate a 50:1 plane sloping up and away from the airport runway, must complete and submit FAA Form 7460-1 to the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1002
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 184 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
FAA. The Plan is located within Area B of the AIA, therefore, future development proposals would be reviewed by C/CAG pursuant to General Plan Action ESPS-6.1. No buildings would be allowed within the Plan that exceed 155 feet from finished grade or above mean sea level, whichever is more restrictive.
• Action ESPS-6.1: Submit proposed land use policy actions (general plans/amendments, specific plans/amendments, rezonings, etc.) and related development plans, if any, that affect property located within the Area B portion of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for San Carlos Airport, to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review/action, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), prior to final action by the City.

Aircraft Overflights
The ALUCP establishes policies height/airspace protection and overflight areas. The Plan is located within the overflight notification zone. California state statutes (Business and Professional Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) mandate that sellers or lessors of real property must disclose information regarding whether their property is situated within an airport influence area. Notification of the proximity to the airport would be required for all future real estate transactions within the Plan, in accordance with existing regulations.

Future development under the Plan would comply with ALUCP safety compatibility policies, including notification requirements, to prevent aviation hazards. (Less than Significant Impact) f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
San Carlos’s EOP establishes the emergency organization and assigns tasks and general procedures.

The City uses an automated telephone and text message system (SMC Alert) that can notify affected portions of the community when emergency alerts or notifications are needed.81 During an emergency, CAL FIRE and RC-SCFD would provide emergency services in the Plan area.

The Plan would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. The Plan would include a roadway connection between Quarry Road and Bragato Road, thereby improving access within the Plan and facilitating emergency response. For these reasons, implementation of the Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant Impact) 81 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1003
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 185 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The Plan is not located within a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity. Accordingly, no people or structures would be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as a result of the Plan. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hazards and hazardous materials impact?
Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials by future development within the City of San Carlos would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment with adherence to the regulations and processes identified in Section 3.9.1.1, which are mandated by federal and state law. All cumulative projects within the cumulative area of effect would be subject to these regulations and processes. Accordingly, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on the public or environment due to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Release of Hazardous Materials Due to Upset and Accident Conditions Future cumulative projects would adhere to CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 and MRP Provision C.12.f to reduce demolition impacts from ACMs, LBP, and PCBs. Future cumulative projects with the potential to encounter and disturb contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater would be required to comply with General Plan policies ESPS-5.3, ESPS-5.5, and ESPS-5.6, which requires completion of site assessments and mitigating hazard exposure as part of the environmental review process. In addition, any required remediation for cumulative projects would be completed under the oversight of the appropriate oversight agency to ensure that all remediation requirements are met. Consistent with the findings of the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, adherence with the regulations and processes identified in Section 3.9.1.1 by all cumulative projects (as mandated by federal and state law) would ensure that the Plan does not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact due to the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Hazardous Emissions and Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, and Waste The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that future development in compliance with existing regulations that apply to the uses that involve transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials (including RCRA, CERCLA, and CCR Title 22) and SCMC Title 13 would not result in the emission of hazardous emissions or exposure of an existing or proposed school to hazardous materials, substances, or waste.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1004
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 186 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites
Pursuant to the discussion under checklist question d), cumulative development projects would be required to adhere with the aforementioned regulations and processes to ensure that development would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Airport Safety Hazards
As discussed under checklist question e), future cumulative projects within AIA Area B would be reviewed by C/CAG pursuant to General Plan Action ESPS-6.1. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR found that with adherence to General Plan Policies NOI-1.11 and NOI-1.13, SCMC Sections

18.21.050-F and 18.21.150-C, and compliance with land use compatibility standards of the San Carlos ALUCP, would ensure aircraft noise impacts associated with cumulative development are considered less than significant. Developers or other parties that propose buildings or alterations to buildings greater than 200 feet in height (above grade), or structures within 10,000 linear feet of the airport that would penetrate a 50:1 plane sloping up and away from the airport runway, must complete and submit FAA Form 7460-1 to the FAA. Compliance with the ALUCP policies would ensure that cumulative airport safety hazard impacts would be less than significant.

Impairment or Interference with Emergency Plans
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that future development would not conflict with the City’s EOP. The Plan would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns, other than providing a new connection between Quarry Road and Bragato Road, or emergency access routes and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Therefore, the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact due to the impairment or interference with emergency response or evacuation plans.

Exposure of People and Structures to Wildland Fires
As discussed under checklist question g), the Plan would not expose any people or structures to wildland fires. As discussed above, the project would not impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans, including those related to wildland fires. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

With adherence to existing regulations and policies (including the General Plan), the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant hazardous materials impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1005
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 187 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Flood Impact Study prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler.

The report, dated March 26, 2025, is attached to this EIR as Appendix E.

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. Regulations set forth by the EPA and the SWRCB have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the NPDES permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the RWQCBs. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the SWRCB and RWQCBs are required to identify impaired surface water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for contaminants of concern. The list of the state’s identified impaired surface water bodies, known as the “303(d) list” can be found on the on the SWRCB’s website.82
National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a NOI must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a SWPPP must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The 82 California State Water Resources Control Board. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_2022_integrated_rep ort.html.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1006
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 188 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES MRP in May 2022 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co-permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.83 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and LID-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g., rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage developmentrelated increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if: (1) the post-project impervious surface area is less than, or the same as, the pre-project impervious surface area; (2) the project is located in a catchment that drains to a hardened (e.g., continuously lined with concrete) engineered channel or channels or enclosed pipes, which extend continuously to the Bay, Delta, or flowcontrolled reservoir, or, in a catchment that drains to channels that are tidally influenced; or (3) 83 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1007
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 189 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
the project is located in a catchment or subwatershed that is highly developed (i.e., that is 70 percent or more impervious).84
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.85 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition. Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.

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

Construction Dewatering Waste Discharge Requirements
Each of the RWQCBs regulate construction dewatering discharges to storm drains or surface waters within its Region under the NPDES program and Waste Discharge Requirements.

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) was established in 1990 to reduce the pollution carried by stormwater into local creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the Pacific Ocean. The program is a partnership of the C/CAG, each incorporated city and town in the county, and the County of San Mateo, which share a common National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The SMCWPPP includes pollution reduction activities for construction 84 The Hydromodification Applicability Maps developed the permittees under Order No. R2-2009-0074 were prepared using this standard, adjusted to 65 percent imperviousness to account for the presence of vegetation on the photographic references used to determine imperviousness. Thus, the maps for Order No. R2-2009-0074 are accepted as meeting the 70 percent requirement.
85 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1008
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 190 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations. The program also includes a target pollutant reduction strategy and monitoring program.

San Mateo County Storm Water Resources Plan
The San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP) is a comprehensive document that addresses specific stormwater runoff issues in the county with a watershed-based approach. The main goals of the SRP are to identify and prioritize opportunities to better utilize stormwater as a resource in San Mateo County through a detailed analysis of watershed processes, surface and groundwater resources, input from stakeholders and the public, and analysis of multiple benefits that can be achieved through strategically planned stormwater management projects. These projects aim to capture and manage stormwater more sustainably, reduce flooding and pollution associated with runoff, improve biological functioning of plants, soils, and other natural infrastructure, and provide many community benefits, including cleaner air and water and enhanced aesthetic value of local streets and neighborhoods. Senate Bill 985 (Pavley, 2014) requires SRPs to be developed to be eligible for funding from future State bond measures for stormwater and dry weather capture projects.

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

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

San Mateo County Flood Control District
The San Mateo County Flood Control District provides financing for flood control projects and manages the larger network of pipes, trenches, culverts, detention basins, and open channels throughout the district.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1009
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 191 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy/Action Description
EM-5.1 Reduce the discharge of toxic material into the city’s sanitary sewer and stormwater collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

EM-5.7 Encourage site designs that manage the quantity and quality of storm water run-off.

EM-5.10 Implement the NPDES Stormwater Permit and for those properties exempt from the Permit, require a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including use of best management practices, to control erosion and sedimentation during construction.

ESPS-2.1 Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.

ESPS-2.2 Maintain and prioritize restoration of a healthy riparian corridor in City-maintained flood control channels such as Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage, and heavy undergrowth; and increase community access to channels with improved stormwater and flood management strategies.

ESPS-2.4 Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.

ESPS-2.5 Evaluate flood hazards on a watershed level, taking into account all sources of water and the eventual end point of each source.

ESPS-2.9 Reduce losses due to flooding by encouraging property owners who experience flood damage to reconstruct their properties in a flood-resistant manner.

ESPS-2.10 Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff, so as to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.

ESPS-12.2 Ensure the San Carlos municipal code protects development from rising groundwater levels.

This may include measures to protect underground utilities from constant submersion, the construction of building foundations and roadbeds in saturated soils, the protection of underground structures, and the management of groundwater dewatered during construction.

San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan
The 2021 CMAP is San Carlos’ strategic plan to reduce GHG emissions and to adapt to changing climate conditions. Potential consequences of climate change include inland flooding, sea level rise, and bayshore flooding. The CMAP includes strategies for mitigating the effects increased flooding due to sea level rise and reducing damage from flooding through establishment of setbacks.

City of San Carlos Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan The City of San Carlos prepared a Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan (SDMP) in April 2017.

The SDMP describes the City’s stormwater and drainage system and identified causes of flooding within the system to assist in development systemwide improvements. Hydraulic modeling of the citywide drainage system was conducted, and the results were used to develop alternative

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1010
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 192 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
improvement projects to improve system capacity. These alternatives were ranked to develop a prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that addresses capacity issues and seeks to prioritize the more severe flooding problems.

City of San Carlos Green Infrastructure Plan
Adopted in 2019, the Green Infrastructure Plan describes how the City will, over time, transition its existing “gray” (i.e., traditional) infrastructure to “green” infrastructure. This document also provides guidance to meet stormwater pollutant load reduction goals and creates a process for prioritizing the integration of Green Infrastructure (GI) into CIP projects. Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soil, and other elements to capture, treat, infiltrate and slow urban runoff. GI measures could include stormwater planters, rain garden, tree wells, pervious pavement, infiltration systems, and green roofs.

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 hydrology and water quality:
• Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, adopts the requirements of the MWELO.
• Chapter 12.08, Grading and Excavation, requires a grading permit to be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of construction activities and must include an interim and final erosion and sediment control plan. In addition, no grading shall be conducted in such a manner as to alter the established gradient of natural drainage channels in a manner to cause excessive erosion or flooding.
• Chapter 13.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, prohibits the discharge of non-stormwater discharges to the City storm drain system. All projects that will or may result in pollutants entering the City storm drain system must comply with Section

13.14.110 to reduce such pollutants, including standards for parking lots and similar structures, and BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects. In addition, this chapter provides for watercourse protection to ensure that all watercourses are kept and maintained reasonably free from pollutants and flow restrictions and for the maintenance of healthy bank vegetation.
• Chapter 15.56, Flood Damage Prevention, promotes public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas.

Nonresidential construction shall either be elevated to or above the base flood elevation or be floodproofed so that the below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water or have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1011
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 193 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Chapter 17.16.270, Storm Drainage Facilities, requires the subdivider to dedicate rights-ofway for storm drainage purposes that conform to the boundary lines of any natural watercourse, channel, stream, or creek that traverses the subdivision. • Chapter 18.18.080, Water Efficient Landscaping, establishes water-efficient landscape and irrigation guidelines to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and minimize runoff with the use of automatic control systems.

Existing Conditions
Hydrology and Drainage
San Carlos is located within the San Francisco Bay watershed, which is further divided into subwatersheds. The Plan is located in the Belmont Creek sub-watershed. Belmont Creek Watershed is approximately 511 acres and is shared with the City of Belmont to the north. Belmont Creek traverses east through San Carlos, and then flows northward east of Highway 101 and flows into the West Redwood Shores outfall and to Belmont Slough and O’Neill Slough.

Surface Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies (such as Belmont Creek) can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from dispersed or areawide sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Existing water quality within the San Carlos is affected by a wide range of inputs, from surface water runoff to pollutant input to groundwater.

Storm Drainage System and Flooding
Storm Drainage System
The City of San Carlos has a layout that drains roughly from the hills at the west side of the City to the east side towards San Francisco Bay. The City’s storm drainage system consists of a combination of underground piping networks, conveyance channels, creeks, ditches, pump stations, and overland flow.

The Plan area is a low-lying region in the east side of San Carlos and faces multiple flooding threats.

Stormwater in the Plan flows to the bay through the Harbor Industrial District Canal along Holly Street and under U.S. 101. The storm water system in the Plan is undersized for a 10-year storm and requires improvements to prevent localized flooding.
86 Refer to Section 3.19.1.2 for additional
information on the existing stormwater system.
86 Schaaf & Wheeler. Industrial Road Drainage Study. 2004.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1012
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 194 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Flooding
As shown on Figure 2.4-14, the Plan is located within the 500-year and 100-year flood zone.

According to the Flood Impact Study, Belmont Creek and the Harbor Industrial Canal experience overtopping near Industrial Road. Both are subject to sedimentation from alluvial and/or tidal sources. Furthermore, Belmont Creek and the Harbor Industrial Canal are subject to downstream backwater effects due to high tides in the San Francisco Bay. Backwater effects lead to an increase in the water surface elevation, which will decrease the capacity of the upstream stormwater system.

Tsunami and Seiche Zones
A tsunami is a sea wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, or other large displacement of water in the ocean. Tsunami inundation maps have been developed that show tsunami hazard zones for the San Francisco Bay area. There are no tsunami hazard zones within the City of San Carlos (including the Plan area).87
Seiches are waves that oscillate in enclosed water bodies, such as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, swimming pools, or semi-enclosed bodies of water, such as San Francisco Bay. The Plan is located approximately 2.7 miles from the bay and would not be expected to be inundated by a seiche.

Groundwater
San Carlos is located within the San Mateo Plain Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Mateo Plain Subbasin is designated as a very low priority basin and therefore is not regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.88 This is because there is very little groundwater use in this basin (less than 2,700 acre-feet/year) and it is mostly due to private well pumping in the subbasin areas south of the City Limits (Redwood City and Menlo Park).

Shallow groundwater is typically encountered in San Carlos at depths ranging from four to eight feet bgs.89As discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, contaminated groundwater is present in the Plan due to past and current uses.

Sea Level Rise
According to OneShoreline, San Mateo County as a whole is the most vulnerable county in California to sea level rise because of its extensive coastline and Bay shoreline and the number of people and value of properties and critical assets in sea level rise-prone areas. Along the shoreline of the City, sea levels are projected to rise approximately two feet by 2050 and up to seven feet by 2100 (depending on the scenario).90 Elevations in the Plan area range from 13 to 50 feet above sea level.
87 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1013
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 195 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Rising sea levels can also cause the shoreline to flood more frequently and severely during storms or king tide events. King tides are abnormally high, predictable astronomical tides that occur about twice per year, with the highest tides occurring when the earth, moon, and sun are aligned.

Because sea level rise will cause ocean levels to be higher during normal conditions, shoreline floods can reach further onto land. Rising tides may also increase groundwater levels, inundating contaminated soils.

3.10.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hydrology and water quality, would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; - substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
- create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Implementation of the Plan could impact water quality during and post-construction of future development.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1014
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 196 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Construction Water Quality
Future development under the Plan could require demolition of buildings constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980, which may contain building materials with PCBs.

During demolition, building materials containing PCBs would impact stormwater quality if not properly abated. Compliance with MRP Provision C.12.f would ensure buildings with the potential to include PCBs are identified, samples taken and tested per established standards, and abated in accordance with existing regulations.

Future excavation and grading of sites within the Plan could result in sediment and other pollutants being transported from active construction sites to nearby waterways and San Francisco Bay through soil erosion, stormwater runoff, and/or wind-blown dust. To reduce water quality impacts during construction, future development projects that would disturb one acre or more of soil are required to comply with the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit to reduce runoff and pollution in runoff from construction activities, including preparation of a NOI and SWPPP, and implementation of stormwater control BMPs. In the event contaminated groundwater is encountered during future construction activities, all dewatering activities would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the RWQCB and the City’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that contaminated groundwater is disposed of properly and is not discharged into the storm drain system. If construction dewatering is required with future development within the Plan, an application for a groundwater waste discharge permit must be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval. Required information includes the source and estimated discharge volume, proposed discharge point to the sewer system and list of contaminants (if present) and expected concentration. The applicant may be required to collect groundwater samples representative of the water quality anticipated in the discharge if construction dewatering occurs in an area of known or potential groundwater contamination. As a result, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

Post-Construction Water Quality Impacts
To reduce water quality impacts post-construction, future developments that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to comply with the MRP (including Provision C.3 and C.6). These regulated projects would be required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) and C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of San Carlos. The SCP would incorporate LID features, such as self-treating and self-retaining areas to allow on-site retention, percolation, and evaporation of stormwater runoff.

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1015
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 197 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Future development under the Plan in compliance with existing regulations including the MRP, Construction General Permit, and SCMC would not result in significant water quality impacts during construction or post-construction. (Less than Significant Impact) b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Groundwater Recharge
Construction dewatering could temporarily affect groundwater recharge. As discussed in Section

3.10.1.2 Existing Conditions, groundwater is typically encountered in San Carlos at depths ranging from four to eight feet bgs. It is possible that future development under the Plan could encounter groundwater and dewatering may be required. As discussed under checklist question a), all dewatering activities would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the RWQCB and the City’s Municipal Code. While construction dewatering could have a temporary effect on the shallow groundwater aquifer, this effect would be limited in terms of the quantity of water withdrawn and the duration of the withdrawal. Therefore, construction dewatering would result in a less-than-significant impact in terms of groundwater recharge.

Groundwater Use
As discussed in Section 3.10.1.2 Existing Conditions, there is very little groundwater use in Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. This basin is also designated as a very low priority basin and therefore is not regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Groundwater is not used for municipal water supply in the city (refer to Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems).

As described above, future development under the Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant Impact) c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows? Erosion and Siltation
Belmont Creek makes up the northern boundary of the Plan. The Plan would not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek. The Plan would implement a 35-foot setback from the existing top of

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1016
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 198 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
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 future projects adjacent to the creek would be evaluated pursuant to CEQA once a projectlevel design is available.

Under existing conditions, current land uses in the Plan are mostly light industrial, research and development, and warehousing type uses. Implementation of the Plan would result in new multifamily residential uses and non-residential uses. As discussed in Section 2.3.5 of this EIR, the Plan would require 15 percent open space dedication for all new development 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. The Plan would include green stormwater infrastructure improvements along all roadways. Therefore, buildout under the Plan would reduce impervious surfaces. This net decrease in impervious surfaces would result in a corresponding decrease in stormwater runoff. Further, future redevelopment under the Plan would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP, which requires implementation of stormwater treatment measures that would collect and treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious areas prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system.

Flooding On- or Off-Site
As discussed above, the Plan would not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek. The Plan area is largely developed and buildout under the Plan would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, there is little potential for an increase in rate or volume of surface runoff. Based on the Flood Impact Study prepared for the Plan, it was determined that 100-year runoff would decrease by three percent under the Plan compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Plan would not result in any significant increase in flooding downstream.

Stormwater Drainage System Capacity
As discussed in Section 2.3.4 Utility Improvements, 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. With the implementation of these improvements, it is anticipated that 10-year flood depths would improve under buildout of the Plan. As discussed in Section 2.3.5 Resiliency Standards, all future development in the Plan would be required to prepare a projectspecific 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.

Impede or Redirect Flows
As discussed in Section 2.3.5 Resiliency Standards, the Plan incorporates the following resiliency standards:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1017
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 199 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Resiliency Project Requirements:
• 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 BFE. • 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).

With the incorporation of the above Plan resiliency standards, buildout under the Plan would not result impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows.

With compliance with the MRP, SCMC, and the Plan’s resiliency standards, future development would not result in substantial erosion or siltation and would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff which would result in flooding, impede or redirect flood flows, or exceed the capacity of the drainage system. (Less than Significant Impact)
d) Would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones?
As discussed in Section 3.10.1.2 Existing Conditions, the Plan area would not be subject to inundation from a tsunami or seiche. Future development projects could involve development of some properties located in FEMA 100-year flood zones (refer to Figure 2.4-14).

As discussed under checklist question c), future development in 100-year flood zones would be subject to floodplain requirements listed in SCMC Chapter 15.56. Additionally, any new development within a 100-year flood zone would be required to set the finished floor elevation above the 100-year BFE. Future development would also be required to 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).

As discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, past and current uses of properties in the Plan have impacted soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater due to activities that involve the handling and storing of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, VOCs and PCBs. Consistent with General Plan polices ESPS-5.3, ESPS-5.5 and ESPS-5.6, future development would be required to mitigate any significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1018
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 200 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
disturbance of contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by future residents and commercial and industrial tenants/owners would be required to comply with existing regulations that apply to the uses that involve transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials include RCRA, CERCLA, and CCR Title 22 (refer to Section 3.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework). SCMC Title 13 also requires that individual business plans for any facility subject to the hazardous materials inventory response program include a program for compliance. For these reasons, the Plan would not substantially increase the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation in the 100-year flood zone. (Less than Significant Impact)
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Water Quality Control
As discussed under checklist question a), future development under the Plan would comply with the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit to reduce runoff and pollution in runoff from construction activities, including preparation of a NOI and SWPPP, and implementation of stormwater control BMPs. In the event contaminated groundwater is encountered during future construction activities, all dewatering activities would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the RWQCB and the City’s Municipal Code. Post-construction, future development that creates or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to comply with the MRP (including Provision C.3 and C.6). Additionally, all development under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the requirements of the SCMC, which prohibits illicit discharge into the storm drain system and includes policies to reduce the pollutants in stormwater (Chapter 13.14.070) and protect the water quality of watercourses (Chapter 13.14.120).

All development that discharges storm water associated with industrial activity shall also comply with the requirements of the General Industrial Permit (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, last amended in 2018). Thus, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan.

Groundwater Management Plan
As discussed under checklist question b), the San Mateo Plain Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is designated as a very low priority basin and therefore is not regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. As described under checklist question b), future development under the Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge.

With adherence to the requirements of the RWQCB and the City’s Municipal Code, future development under the Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1019
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 201 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hydrology and water quality impact?
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that cumulative hydrology impacts in the City would be less than significant with adherence to existing water quality regulations, including the SCMC and NPDES Construction General Permit,
Water Quality Standards and Discharge Requirements
All cumulative projects would be required to adhere to state and local regulations to comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, thereby resulting in less than significant impacts to surface or ground water quality. These regulations are in place to ensure individual projects do not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Groundwater Supplies and Recharge
As discussed under checklist question b), groundwater is not used for municipal water supply in the City. For these reasons, future cumulative development would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns
Cumulative projects would be required to adhere to existing regulations (including the Construction General Permit and Provision C.3) to manage stormwater runoff and erosion and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These regulations are in place to ensure individual projects do not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Project Inundation
Any risk of project inundation due to floods, tsunamis, or seiches resulting in the release of pollutants would be reduced to a less than significant level by compliance with existing regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as Provision C.3 of the RWQCB Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. The Plan area is not subject to seiches or tsunamis. Therefore, the cumulative projects would not result in a cumulatively significant risk of pollutant release due to inundation.

Conflicts with Water Quality Control and Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans
All cumulative projects would be required to adhere to existing regulations to ensure compliance with water quality control plans. The plans are in place to ensure individual projects do not result in a cumulative impact to water quality or groundwater management. For these reasons, the Plan

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1020
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 202 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

With adherence to standard permit conditions and existing regulations, the Plan would have a less than significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1021
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 203 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.11 Land Use and Planning

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Aviation Administration
FAA Regulations set standards for obstructions to airspace. The City of San Carlos is required to comply with these, and other FAA regulations and policies intended to protect the San Carlos Airport and aircraft in flight from incompatible land uses that potentially create hazards or constraints to airport operations. The FAA requires projects of a specific height in a given location within the Notification Surface area to submit a notice for airspace safety review (see Section

4.9.1.1).

Local
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The /CAG Board of Directors serves as the airport land use commission for San Mateo County. The Airport Land Use Commission reviews proposals for general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and land use development proposals in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport to ensure that future land uses in the surrounding area remain compatible with the realistically foreseeable, ultimate potential aircraft activity. The ALUCP for the three public airports in San Mateo County are adopted by C/CAG, the ALUC responsible for promoting land use compatibility around the County’s airports in order to minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. Amendments were most recently made to the San Carlos ALUCP in 2022. The ALUCPs describe a series of land use safety and compatibility zones and associated guidelines for development around each airport that are intended to prevent development that is incompatible with airport operations. These regulations include height restrictions based on proximity to the airport and flight patterns. The ALCUPs delineate two AIAs, Area A and Area B, within proximity to each airport. As a requirement for development located in Area A, the presence of existing airports within two miles of the property must be disclosed in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale. For development located within Area B of the AIA, the C/CAG Board shall exercise its statutory duty to review proposed land development proposals, among other plans, ordinances, amendments, and actions.

The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Carlos Airport adopted in 2015 sets forth land use compatibility criteria, compatibility zones, development standards, and policies pertaining to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight standards, and establishes the planning boundaries that define height, tall structures, noise, and safety zones for policy implementation.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1022
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 204 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The ALCUP is divided into six safety zones. These zones include the (1) Runway Protection Zone, (2) Inner Approach/Departure Zone, (3) Inner Turning Zone, (4) Outer Approach/Departure Zone, (5) Sideline Zone, and (6) Traffic Pattern Zone. The majority of the Plan is located in Zone 6, however, a small portion of the PAMF site is within Zone 3. Commercial (i.e., office and retail), manufacturing, R&D, industrial uses, and residential are all considered compatible uses in Safety Zone 6. Schools and daycares would be conditionally compatible in Zone 6.

San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating land use impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
LU-1.3 Ensure that development within the TOD corridor maintains and improves the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.

LU-1.4 Establish and support the El Camino Real/Caltrain multimodal TOD corridor for the purpose of the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.

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

LU-3.9 Promote development opportunities for regular physical activity by locating residential developments near services.

CSH-3.4 Support Smart Growth and Sustainability principles to reduce travel time from housing to jobs, provide affordable transportation to all members of the community, allow compact mixed-use development and decrease dependency on automobiles.

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.

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 land use and planning as follows:
• Title 17, Subdivisions, regulates and controls the design and improvement of subdivisions and to ensure their compliance with applicable policies and regulations of the City of San Carlos. Within this title the Subdivisions Maps Act is implemented. • Title 18, Zoning Code, divides the city into distinct zones in order to implement the land use and development policies in the General Plan. Among the primary objectives of the Zoning Code are the regulation of building form, placement, density, and the provision of sufficient parking and open spaces in conjunction with development.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1023
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 205 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Existing Conditions
General Plan Designations and Zoning
As described in Section 2.1 of this EIR, the entire Plan 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, warehousing, and related uses.

As shown in Figure 2.2-1, the Plan currently has three zoning districts: Light Industrial, Industrial Professional, and Planned Development. Refer to Table 2.2-1 for a summary of the intended uses under each zoning district.

Surrounding Land Uses
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 CA-82, Caltrain tracks, and residential and commercial land uses.

3.11.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on land use and planning, would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Project Impacts
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? A physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, roadway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local roadway or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between communities.

The implementation of the Plan would allow for the addition of 1,890 residential units (where none exists today) and the overall intensification of non-residential development within the Plan area.

The total amount of non-residential development would increase by 4,508,000 square feet. While the project would allow for growth and development in the Plan, the area is separated from the majority of the adjacent communities by roadways. For example, the Plan area is separated from

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1024
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 206 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
the existing residential community to the west by Old County Road, CA-82, and Caltrain tracks. U.S. 101, a six-lane freeway, separates the Plan area from the commercial and industrial land uses to the east. The Greater San Carlos neighborhood, located south of the Plan, would not be separated from the Plan by a roadway.

One of the primary objectives of the Plan is to improve mobility throughout the Plan through the creation and enhancement of connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. As discussed in Section 2.3.2 Circulation Improvements, implementation of a new north-south street segment connecting Quarry Road to Bragato Road is proposed as part of the Plan to facilitate connectivity within the Plan. Additionally, 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 would include 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 would provide an additional walking route to connect Old County Road to Industrial Road.

The Plan would also implement various intersection improvements and traffic calming measures (refer to Section 2.3.2 Circulation Improvements).

Furthermore, the Plan does not include the provision of dividing infrastructure such as highways or railways that could be expected to physically divide existing, adjacent communities. For these reasons, the Plan would improve connectivity between the Plan area and adjacent communities and would not physically divide an existing community. (Less than Significant Impact) b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Plan would introduce Mixed-Use, 75-90 du/acre as a new land use classification in the Plan area and would allow for a variety of zoning districts (see Table 2.3-2) to facilitate redevelopment and growth in the Plan area. As a result, Plan buildout would result in a net increase of 4,508,000 square feet of non-residential land uses and 1,890,000 square feet (i.e. 1,890 units, assuming 1,000 square feet per unit) of residential land uses.

The associated growth resulting from buildout of the Plan was analyzed in the buildout projections for the 2045 General Plan Reset. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental affect. Both the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR and this EIR for the Plan have been prepared for the purpose of evaluating growth in the Plan area.

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,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1025
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 207 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
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.

As discussed above in Section 3.11.1.1, the majority of the Plan is located in Zone 6 of the ALCUP.

Commercial (i.e., office and retail), manufacturing, R&D, industrial uses, and residential are all considered compatible uses in Safety Zone 6. Schools and daycares would be conditionally compatible in Zone 6. As such, future uses in the Plan would comply with the ALUC’s safety compatibility criteria. For these reasons, the Plan would not result in a significant impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant land use and planning impact?
The geographic area for cumulative land use impacts is the City of San Carlos.

Established Community
As discussed under checklist question a), the Plan would improve mobility through the creation and enhancement of connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. Furthermore, the Plan does not include the provision of dividing infrastructure such as highways or railways that could be expected to physically divide existing adjacent communities. For these reasons, the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the division of an established community.

Land Use Plan
Land uses in the City are regulated by the 2045 General Plan Reset. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that implementation of buildout under the General Plan Reset, in accordance with its policies and programs, along with mitigation measures, would not result in a cumulatively significant land use and planning impact. Future development under the Plan, in combination with cumulative projects, would continue to be subject to the policies and programs of the 2045 General Plan Reset. For these reasons, the project would not result in a significant cumulative land use impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 208 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.12 Mineral Resources

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

California Geological Survey
As mandated by SMARA, the CGS has classified lands within the San Francisco-Monterey Bay region into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on the California State Mining and Geology Board guidelines. Areas with an MRZ-1 designation have sufficient information available indicating that there is little to no likelihood of significant mineral deposits. MRZ-2 areas are those where adequate information indicates that significant deposits are present. Areas classified as MRZ-3 contain mineral deposits, but their significance cannot be evaluated from available data. Areas are classified as MRZ-4 where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ category.

Existing Conditions
No portion of San Carlos is designated by the California Department of Conservation as having the potential for being a significant source of composite materials or industrial minerals.

3.12.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on mineral resources, would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1027
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 209 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?
There are no mineral extraction sites, and no known mineral resources are present within the Plan area. Therefore, the Plan would not result in impacts to mineral resources. (No Impact) b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As noted above, there are no mineral resources (including recovery sites) in San Carlos. Therefore, the Plan would not result in impacts to mineral resource recovery sites. (No Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant mineral resources impact?
As discussed above under checklist question a) and b), the Plan area is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site, nor does it contain any known mineral resource. Implementation of the Plan, therefore, would not contribute to a cumulative impact on mineral resources. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1028
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 210 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.13 Noise
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Noise and Vibration Assessment completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated April 3, 2025. This report is included as Appendix F to this EIR.

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, include the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale, which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including Leq, DNL, or CNEL.91 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.
91 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (DNL) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1029
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 211 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 3.13-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 3.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations
65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83 Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State and Local
California Building Standards Code
The CBC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources do not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.

California Department of Transportation
Caltrans recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards. A conservative vibration limit of 0.25 to 0.30 in/sec PPV has been used for older buildings (i.e. pre-1945) that are found to be structurally sound but cosmetic damage to plaster ceilings or walls is a major concern. For buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened, a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV is often used to provide the

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1030
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 212 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
highest level of protection. All of these limits have been used successfully and compliance to these limits has not been known to result in appreciable structural damage. All vibration limits referred to herein apply on the ground level and take into account the response of structural elements (i.e. walls and floors) to groundborne excitation.

California Airport Noise Regulation
The California Airport Noise Regulation (California Code of Regulations Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6) identifies the 65 CNEL contour for aircraft operations at an airport as the Noise Impact Boundary. Within the Noise Impact Boundary, the airport proprietor is required to ensure that all land uses are compatible with the aircraft noise environment, or the airport proprietor must secure a variance from Caltrans.

San Carlos Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
As previously discussed in Section 3.11.1.1, the San Carlos ALUCP ensures the safety of airport operations. According to the ALUCP’s (2013) Aircraft Noise Contours, the eastern portion of the Plan lies within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, however the entire Plan Area is outside of the boundary for 65 CNEL. 92
San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating noise and vibration impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
NO-1.1 Use the Noise and Land Compatibility Standards shown in Figure 9-1 (refer to Table 3.13-2 below), the noise level performance standards in Table 9-1 (refer to Table 3.13-3) and the projected future noise contours for the General Plan shown in Figure 9-3 and detailed in Table 9-2, as a guide for future planning and development decisions.

NOI-1.2 Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses. Noise-sensitive land uses include residential uses, retirement homes, hotels/motels, schools, libraries, community centers, places or public assembly, daycare facilities, churches and hospitals.

Noi-1.3 Limit noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses to noise level standards as indicated in Table 9-1.

NOI-1.4 Require a detailed acoustic report in all cases where noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL Ldn or greater. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.

NOI-1.5 New development of noise-sensitive land uses proposed in noise-impacted areas shall incorporate effective mitigation measures into the project design to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to the following acceptable levels. 92 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. October 2015.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1031
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 213 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
a. For new single-family residential development, maintain a standard of 60 Ldn (day/night average noise level) for exterior noise in private use areas. b. For new multi-family residential development maintain a standard of 65 Ldn in community outdoor recreation areas. Noise standards are not applied to private decks and balconies and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis in the downtown core.
c. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 Ldn in all new residential units (singleand multi-family). Development sites exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 Ldn shall be analyzed following protocols in Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208, A, Sound Transmission Control, 2001 Building Code Chapter 12, Appendix 1207.11.2 of the 2007 California Building Coe (or the latest version). d. Where new residential units (single- and multi-family) would be exposed to intermittent noise levels generated during train operations, maximum railroad noise levels inside homes shall not exceed 50 dBA in bedrooms or 55 dBA in other occupied spaces. These single event limits are only applicable where there are normally four or more train operations per day.

NOI-1.6 Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the noise level standards, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered after practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.

NOI-1.7 The City shall seek to reduce impacts from groundborne vibration associated with rail operations by requiring that vibration-sensitive buildings (e.g. residences) are sited at least 100 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks whenever feasible. The development of vibration-sensitive buildings within 100 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks would require a study demonstrating that groundborne vibration issues associated with rail operations have been adequately addressed (i.e., through building siting, foundation design and construction techniques).

NOI-1.8 All construction activities shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Development projects that require an acoustical study shall incorporate reasonable noise and vibration reduction measures and best management practices to minimize excessive noise levels during all phases of construction activity. Reduction measures and best management practices may include, but are not limited to, noise control techniques for construction tools and equipment, construction site management techniques, temporary noise barriers, noise monitoring and reporting, and/or construction traffic management.

NOI-1.9 Minimize potential transportation-related noise through the use of setbacks, street circulation design, coordination of routing and other traffic control measures and the construction of noise barriers and consider use of “quiet” pavement surfaces when resurfacing roadways.

NOI-1.10 Ensure that mixed-use development projects are designed to minimize noise impacts on residential units.

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-1.12 Ensure consistency with the noise compatibility policies and criteria contained in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport.

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.

NOI-1.14 The Federal Transit Administration vibration impact criteria and assessment methods shall be used to evaluate the compatibility of train vibration with proposed land uses adjoining

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1032
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 214 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
the UPRR (Caltrain) corridor. Site specific vibration studies shall be completed for vibrationsensitive uses proposed within 100 feet of active railroad tracks.

Table 3.13-2: General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1033
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 215 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.13-3: General Plan Non-Transportation Noise Standards 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 noise as follows:
• Chapter 9.30, Noise Control, declares that the policy of the City is to protect the peace, health and safety of its citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable noises produced by any machine, person or device. It shall also be the City’s policy to continuously evaluate the noise levels specified in the body of this chapter and adjust them as quieter equipment becomes available or as demanded by State and Federal requirements.
o Section 9.30.030, Basic Noise Regulation, states that, except as otherwise permitted under this chapter, no person shall cause and no property owner shall permit, as to property owned by him, a noise produced by any person, amplified sound or device, or any combination thereof in excess of ten dBA above the local ambient to emanate from any property, public or private, as measured at a distance of forty-nine feet beyond the property line.
o Section 9.30.070, Exempt Activities, lists the following noise-generating activities that exempt from the provisions of SCMC Chapter 9.30:
 Transportation facilities, such as freeways, airports, buses and railroads;

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1034
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 216 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
 Construction Activities; such activities, however, shall be limited to the hours of eight a.m. to five p.m., Monday through Friday and nine a.m. to five p.m. on Saturdays. No construction noise-related activities on Sundays and 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;
 Home Workshop and Gardening Equipment; such activities, however, shall be limited to the hours of eight a.m. to sunset, Monday through Friday and ten a.m. to sunset on Saturday. No construction noise-related activities can occur on Sundays and certain holidays.
 Public works and public utilities activities, which shall be limited to the hours set forth under Subsection B above, except for emergency situations;
 Emergency vehicles;
 Solid waste pickup.

Section 18.21.050-A, Noise Limits, prohibits use or activity that create noise levels that exceed the established standards. The maximum allowable noise levels specified in SCMC Table 18.21.050-A, Noise Limits, (see Table 3.13-3, Non-Transportation Noise Standards) do not apply to noise generated by automobile traffic or other mobile noise sources in the public right-of-way. The maximum allowable noise levels in Table 3.13-3 (SCMC Table 18.21.050-A, Noise Limits) shall be adjusted according to the following provisions, with no more than one increase in the maximum permissible noise level applied to the noise generated on each property:
o Ambient Noise. If the ambient noise level at a noise-sensitive use is 10 dBA or more below the standard, the allowable noise standard shall be decreased by 5 dBA.
o Duration. The maximum allowable noise level (L50) shall be increased as follows to account for the effects of duration:
 Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of fifteen minutes in any hour (L25) may exceed the noise limit by 5 dBA; and
 Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of five minutes in any hour (L8) may exceed the noise limits by 10 dBA;
 Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of one minute in any hour (L2) may exceed the noise limits by 15 dBA.
o Character of Sound. If a noise contains a steady audible tone or is a repetitive noise (such as hammering or riveting) or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the maximum allowable noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1035
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 217 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
o Prohibited Noise. Noise for a cumulative period of thirty minutes or more in any hour which exceeds the noise standard for the receiving land use is prohibited.
• Section 18.21.050-B, Noise Exposure, includes SCMC Table 18.21.050-B (see Table 3.13-4) which describes the requirements and limitations of various land uses within the listed day/night average sound level (Ldn) ranges. • Section 18.21.050-C, Acoustic Study, permits the Director to require an acoustic study for any proposed project that could cause any of the following:
o Create an inconsistency with the noise requirements of the San Carlos Airport as defined in Section 18.21.150, San Carlos Airport land use compatibility plan consistency;
 Where applicable, noise attenuation measures may be
required;
o Cause noise levels to exceed the limits in Table 18.21.050-A (see Table

3.13-3);
o Create a noise exposure that would require an acoustic study and noise attenuation measures listed in Table 18.21.050-B ( see Table

3.13-4);
o Cause the Ldn at noise sensitive uses to increase three dBA or more. • Section 18.21.050-D, Establishing Ambient Noise, states that when the Director has determined that there could be cause to make adjustments to the standards, an acoustical study shall be performed to establish ambient noise levels. In order to determine if adjustments to the standards should be made either upwards or downwards, a minimum twenty-four-hour-duration noise measurement shall be conducted. The noise measurements shall collect data utilizing noise metrics that are consistent with the noise limits presented in SCMC Table 18.21.050-A, e.g., L max (zero minutes), L 02 (one minute), L 08 (five minutes), L 25 (fifteen minutes) and L 50 (thirty minutes). An arithmetic average of these ambient noise levels during the three quietest hours shall be made to demonstrate that the ambient noise levels are regularly ten or more decibels below the respective noise standards. Similarly, an arithmetic average of ambient noise levels during the three loudest hours should be made to demonstrate that ambient noise levels regularly exceed the noise standards. • Section 18.21.050-E, Noise Attenuation Measures, states that any project subject to the acoustic study requirements of subsection C of this section may be required as a condition of approval to incorporate noise attenuation measures deemed necessary to ensure that noise standards are not exceeded. o New noise-sensitive uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain an interior noise level of forty-five dBA. o Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1036
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 218 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
o Emphasis shall be placed upon site planning and project design measures. The use of noise barriers shall be considered and may be required only after all feasible design-related noise measures have been incorporated into the project.
• Section 18.21.050-F, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency, states that where required, conformance with applicable airport land use compatibility plan standards, as described in Section 18.21.150, San Carlos Airport land use compatibility plan consistency, is required. • Section 18.21.060, Vibration, prohibits the production of vibration that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.
• Section 18.21.150-C, Airport Noise Evaluation and Mitigation, requires all proposed development projects, alterations, or changes of use subject to the ALUCP to be reviewed for consistency with the noise policies of the ALUCP, including the avigation easement requirements of San Carlos ALUCP Noise Policy 7. Uses listed as “conditionally compatible” in the ALUCP will be required to mitigate impacts to comply with the interior noise standards established in the ALUCP or General Plan, whichever is more restrictive.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1037
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 219 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.13-4: Noise Exposure Requirements and Limitations Existing Conditions
The existing noise environment in the Plan area results primarily from traffic noise along U.S. 101, Holly Street, and Industrial Avenue. Traffic noise from other roads such as Harbor Boulevard, Old County Road, El Camino Real, and other minor roads also contributes to the noise environment. The Peninsula Corridor/Union Pacific railroad tracks are just southwest of Old County Road and are utilized primarily by Caltrain services. San Carlos Airport is located as close as 1,100 feet to the east of the Plan area. Operational noise from surrounding industrial land uses also contributes to the noise environment.

A noise monitoring survey consisting of four long-term (LT-1 through LT-4) and six short-term (ST-1 through ST-6) noise measurements was conducted within the study area and vicinity between Wednesday, January 25, 2023, and Friday, January 27, 2023. All noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 3.13-1 and short-term measurements are summarized in Table 3.13-5.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1038
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
LT-2 LT-3
LT-4
LT-1
ST-3
ST-5
ST-2
ST-1
ST-4
ST-6
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 6, 2024. Photo Date: Apr. 2022 Short-Term Noise Measurement LocaƟon
Long-Term Noise Measurement LocaƟon
Project Boundary
0 200 800 1,200 2,000 Feet
San Carlos
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 3.13-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 220 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 221 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.13-5: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement
Location Time
Measured Noise Level, dBA
Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq
ST-1: ~400 feet from the
centerline of US 101 11:20-11:30 69 65 60 57 55 58
ST-2: ~520 feet from the
centerline of Industrial Road 11:40-11:50 59 57 50 46 45 48 ST-3: ~65 feet from the
centerline of Industrial Road 12:00-12:10 77 73 67 60 54 64 ST-4: ~30 feet from the
centerline of Quarry Road 12:20-12:30 75 70 64 53 47 59 ST-5: ~75 feet from the
centerline of Industrial Road 12:50-13:00 71 70 67 61 53 63 ST-6: ~60 feet from the
centerline of Quarry Road 13:10-13:20 72 70 61 51 46 58 The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is a public-use airport located approximately eight miles northwest of the Plan Area. According to the ALUCP for SFO, 93 the Plan lies well outside the
65 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour. The San Carlos Airport is located east of the Plan Area, opposite the U.S. 101/Holly Street interchange. As shown on Figure 3.13-2, the eastern corner of the Plan Area lies partially within the 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour, but the entire Plan Area lies outside the 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour.
93 Ricondo & Associates, Inc. with Jacobs Consultancy and Clarion Associates, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1040
Noise Contours (2035)
JurisdicƟonal Boundary

NOISE SENSITIVE FACILITIES
School
Hospital
Place of Worship

GENERALIZED PLANNED LAND USE
Single Family ResidenƟal
MulƟ-Family ResidenƟal
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Mixed Use
Open Space/RecreaƟon/PreservaƟon
Park/Golf Course/Cemetery
Water
Vacant/Unclassified
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
SAN CARLOS AIRPORT 2035 NOISE CONTOURS FIGURE 3.13-2
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 222 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 223 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.13.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on noise, would the project result in:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Thresholds of Significance
Construction Noise
SCMC Section 9.30.070 exempts construction noise during the hours of eight a.m. to five p.m., Monday through Friday, and nine a.m. to five p.m. on Saturday. No construction noise-related activities on Sundays and 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. However, the City does not have established noise thresholds for construction noise impact analysis. Therefore, the analysis relies on the FTA construction noise criterion of 80 dBA Leq at residential land uses, 85 dBA Leq at commercial and office uses, and 90 dBA Leq at industrial land uses.

Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources are controlled by General Plan non-transportation noise standards, shown in Table 3.13-3, and SCMC Section 9.30 and Section 18.21.050. For non-transportation noise sources that would be analyzed at the project level, pursuant to Section 18.21.050, the exterior noise level limit in residential districts is 55 dB(A) L50 and 70 dBA Lmax during daylight hours and 45 dB(A) L50 and 60 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours. The interior noise level limit in residential districts is 40 dB(A) L50 and 55 dBA Lmax during daylight hours and 30 dB(A) L50 and 45 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours.

Groundborne Vibration
SCMC Section 18.21.060 considers vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) exempt from the City’s standard. However, the City does not have established vibration thresholds for construction noise impact analysis. Therefore, Caltrans’ vibration thresholds are used (0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.25 to 0.30

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1042
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 224 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
in/sec PPV for older buildings (i.e. pre-1945) that are found to be structurally sound but cosmetic damage to plaster ceilings or walls is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV for buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened).

Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Temporary Construction Noise
No specific development or construction is proposed as part of the Plan. The Plan would be built out over a span of approximately 20 years. As such, construction activities would occur intermittently at different sites within the Plan until full buildout. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by intervening structures or terrain, and ambient noise levels. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time.

SCMC Section 9.30.070 exempts construction noise during the hours of eight a.m. to five p.m., Monday through Friday, and nine a.m. to five p.m. on Saturday. No construction noise-related activities on Sundays and 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. This section of the SCMC also states that all gasoline-powered construction equipment shall be equipped with an operating muffler or baffling system as originally provided by the manufacturer, and no modification to these systems is permitted. The City does not have established quantitative thresholds for the impact of temporary increases in noise due to construction. Therefore, this EIR relies on the FTA construction noise criterion of 80 dBA Leq at residential land uses, 85 dBA Leq at commercial and office uses, and 90 dBA Leq at industrial land uses.

Major noise-generating construction activities associated with development under the Plan would typically include removal of existing structures, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, the construction of building foundations, cores, and shells, paving, and landscaping. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. While specific project information is unknown at this time, the construction of building foundations for high-rise buildings may require impact or vibratory pile driving activities to support the structure, which would generate high noise levels. Site grading, excavation activities, the operation of heavy construction equipment, and the arrival/departure of

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1043
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 225 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
heavy-duty trucks would also generate high noise levels, as these phases often require the simultaneous use of multiple pieces of heavy equipment such as dozers, excavators, scrapers, and loaders.

Typical hourly average construction generated noise levels are about 81 to 88 dBA Leq, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. Lower noise levels result from building construction activities when these activities move indoors, and less heavy equipment is required to complete the tasks.

Impact NOI-1: Future construction associated with development under the Plan could result in temporary construction noise impacts.

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;
• 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;

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1044
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 226 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• 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.
• 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.

Future development under the Plan would comply with SCMC Section 9.30.070 and General Plan Policy NOI-1.8 and, consistent with the conclusions of the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, would result in less than significant construction noise impacts by limiting the days and hours allowed for construction activity and requiring the implementation of construction noise control and attenuation measures.

Permanent Operational Noise
Based on General Plan Policy NOI-1.4, a permanent increase in noise levels would be considered substantial if: 1) the noise levels caused the Ldn at noise-sensitive uses to increase by three dBA or more and exceed the “normally acceptable” level; 2) the noise levels caused the Ldn at noisesensitive uses to increase by 5 dBA or more and remain “normally acceptable;” or if 3) the noise levels to exceed the limits in Table 3.13-3.

Traffic Noise
For a substantial permanent cumulative traffic noise increase to occur, two qualifications must be met: 1) if the Cumulative (2045) With Plan (Build) traffic volumes result in a noise level increase defined in Action NOI-1.4 of the City’s General Plan; and 2) if the Cumulative (2045) With Plan (Build) traffic volumes result in a 1 dBA Ldn or more noise level increase compared to Cumulative (2045) Without Plan (No Build) conditions, which would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall traffic noise increase.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1045
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 227 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Traffic noise increases were calculated for the Cumulative (2045) Without Plan (No Build) scenario and for the Cumulative (2045) With Plan (Build) scenario when compared to existing conditions.

Table 3.13-6 below summarizes the existing and projected future noise levels on select roadway segments. Figure 3.13-3 and Figure 3.13-4 show the cumulative noise contours with and without the Plan, respectively.

As shown in Table 3.13-6 below, the following roadway segments in the Plan area would increase by more than three dBA Ldn with the Cumulative (2045) With Plan (Build) scenario, when compared to the existing traffic conditions:
• Old County Road west of Harbor Boulevard;
• Old County Road between Harbor Boulevard and Quarry Road; • Old County Road between Quarry Road and Taylor Way;
• Old County Road between Taylor Way and Holly Street;
• Old County Road east of Holly Street;
• Industrial Road between Taylor Way and driveway;
• Holly Street south of Old County Road;
• Taylor Way between Industrial Road and Old County Road; and • Quarry Road between Industrial Road and Old County Road.

Increased traffic on each of these segments result in a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater under the Cumulative (2045) With Plan (Build) conditions. Along Old County Road between Quarry Road and Taylor Way, between Taylor Way and Holly Street, and east of Holly Street, a three dBA Ldn increase was also calculated under the Cumulative (2045) Without Plan (No Build) scenario. As shown in Table 3.13-6, the increase attributable solely to the Plan would be zero dBA Ldn. Therefore, the permanent noise level increase along these three segments would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall traffic noise at receptors along these segments.

Along all other segments listed above, the permanent noise level increases would be one to two dBA Ldn higher than the increases calculated for the Cumulative (2045) Without Plan (No Build) scenario. While each of these segments would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall traffic noise at the existing receptors along these roadways, no existing noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., single- or multi-family residences, schools, hospitals, etc.) are located along Taylor Way, Quarry Road, or Harbor Boulevard. Therefore, consistent with General Plan Policy NOI-1.2, these noise level increases result in a less-than-significant impact.

PAMF is located along the Industrial Road segment between Taylor Way and the driveway, and this would be considered a noise-sensitive receptor. However, the existing and future noise

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1046
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 228 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.13-6: Existing and Future Modeled Noise Levels Along Surrounding Roadways Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 feet from the Roadway Centerline, dBA Increase Over Existing, dBA Ldn Increase of Cumulative Build
Scenario Over Cumulative
No Build Scenarios, dBA
Existing
(2023)
Existing
(2023)
with
Plan
(Build)
Cumulative
(2045)
without Plan
(No Build)
Cumulative
(2045) with
Plan (Build)
Existing
(2023)
with
Plan
(Build)
Cumulative
(2045)
without Plan
(No Build)
Cumulative (2045)
with Plan (Build)
Old County
Road/
Caltrain
tracks
West of Harbor
Blvd. 66 67 68 69.1 1 2 3 1
Harbor Blvd. to
Quarry Rd. 67 68 69 70 1 2 3 1
Quarry Rd. to
Taylor Way 68 69 71 71 1 3 3 0
Taylor Way to
Holly St. 68 69 71 71 1 3 3 0
East of Holly St. 67 68 70 70 1 3 3 0
Industrial
Road
Harbor Blvd. to
Quarry Rd. 69 70 70 71 1 1 2 1
Quarry Rd. to
Taylor Way 68 69 70 70 1 2 2 0
Taylor Way to
driveway 68 70 70 71 2 2 3 1
Driveway to
Holly St. 68 69 69 70 1 1 2 1
East of Holly St. 69 69 71 71 0 2 2 0
Holly Street
North of US 101 67 68 68 68 1 1 1 0
Industrial Rd. to
Old County Rd. 65 66 67 67 1 1 2 1

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1047
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 229 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 75 feet from the Roadway Centerline, dBA Increase Over Existing, dBA Ldn Increase of Cumulative Build
Scenario Over Cumulative
No Build Scenarios, dBA
Existing
(2023)
Existing
(2023)
with
Plan
(Build)
Cumulative
(2045)
without Plan
(No Build)
Cumulative
(2045) with
Plan (Build)
Existing
(2023)
with
Plan
(Build)
Cumulative
(2045)
without Plan
(No Build)
Cumulative (2045)
with Plan (Build)
South of Old
County Rd. 66 67 68 69 1 2 3 1
Taylor Way Industrial Rd. to
Old County Rd. 60 62 62 63 2 2 3 1
Quarry
Road
Industrial Rd. to
Old County Rd. 61 63 62 64 2 1 3 2
Harbor
Boulevard
North of
Industrial Rd. 71 72 73 74 1 2 3 1
Industrial Rd. to
Old County Rd. 66 68 67 68 2 1 2 1
US 101 North of Holly
Street 82 82 84 84 1 2 2 0
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin. Northeast Area Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Assessment. February 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1048
0 300 600 1,200 Feet
NOISE CONTOURS FOR THE CUMULATIVE (2045) WITHOUT PLAN (NO BUILD) TRAFFIC SCENARIO FIGURE 3.13-3 Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 230 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
0 300 600 1,200 Feet
NOISE CONTOURS FOR THE CUMULATIVE (2045) WITH PLAN (BUILD) TRAFFIC SCENARIO FIGURE 3.13-4 Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 231 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 232 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
environment at the medical facility would be dominated by U.S. 101, which is significantly louder than Industrial Road. Therefore, the traffic noise increase along Industrial Road from the project would not be noticeable at PAMF compared to the noise level experienced by the adjoining U.S. 101.

Additionally, a newly constructed residential building (Artisan Crossing completed in 2023) is located along Old County Road, west of Harbor Boulevard, and would be considered a sensitive receptor exposed to a potentially significant permanent noise level increase; however, new residential buildings are designed to meet the normally acceptable environmental noise conditions under future conditions, typically 20 years or more in the future. The Artisan Crossing building would include adequate noise attenuating features to reduce future exterior noise levels at common outdoor use areas to meet the City thresholds, as well as adequate STC-rated wall assemblies to ensure residential interiors are at or below 45 dBA Ldn under future conditions. These design features included in the Artisan Crossing apartment building are typically recommended mitigation measures to reduce a significant permanent noise level increase to a less-than-significant level.

Consistent with General Plan Policy NOI-1.9, future development projects implementing the Plan would minimize potential transportation-related noise through the use of setbacks, street circulation design, coordination of routing and other traffic control measures and the construction of noise barriers and consider use of “quiet” pavement surfaces when resurfacing roadways.

Operational Noise
Future development under the Plan is anticipated to require various mechanical equipment for heating, ventilation, and cooling purposes, exhaust fans, emergency generators, and other similar equipment that could produce noise levels exceeding the maximum noise limits when located near existing or proposed residential land uses. Additionally, potential noise-generating sources, such as truck deliveries or other project-specific operational noise sources, may also be proposed at the project-level. Given that the Plan does not propose or approve any specific development, noise generated by future mechanical equipment at the property plane of existing residential, commercial, and industrial land uses cannot be quantified at this time, since it is dependent on the distance between the noise source and receptor, attenuation provided by project design, and other project-specific factors. Stationary noise sources are controlled by General Plan non-transportation noise standards, shown in Table 3.13-3, and SCMC Section 9.30 and Section 18.21.050.

With adherence to SCMC requirements and General Plan goals, policies, and actions, stationary noise impacts associated with future development and activities under the Plan would be evaluated and mitigated as needed to meet General Plan and SCMC requirements as individual development projects undergo project-level environmental review, and are considered less than significant.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1051
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 233 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Summary of Project-Generated Noise
The City of San Carlos General Plan and SCMC provides policies and thresholds to reduce operational and transportation noise at sensitive receptors. Chapter 18.21.050 of the SCMC regulates all operational noise and noise attenuation measures, including site planning and project design measures, to be incorporated into future projects to reduce noise levels to meet the above thresholds and interior levels of 45 dBA. Noise barriers shall be considered and may be required only after all feasible design-related noise measures have been incorporated into future projects.

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

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.

The incorporation of the measures recommended by the acoustical consultant to ensure compliance with the City’s requirements would reduce the impact to future development projects to a less-than-significant level. Since the Artisan Crossing building already includes these measures as part of the building design, the permanent noise level increase would be considered a less-thansignificant impact at this new sensitive receptor.

Future development, in compliance with the above General Plan policies and the SCMC, would not result in a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan in excess of standards established in the General Plan and noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1052
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 234 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The Plan does not include new permanent sources of vibration. The following discussion pertains to construction vibration.

Caltrans recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, which typically consist of buildings constructed since the 1990s. Conservative vibration limits of 0.25 to 0.3 in/sec PPV have been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern. For historical buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened, a cautious limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV is often used to provide the highest level of protection. No historical buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened are adjacent to Plan area. For the purposes of this analysis, groundborne vibration levels exceeding the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV limit for conventional buildings would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.

The Plan would be built out over the span of approximately 20 years. As such, future construction activities and associated groundborne vibration, would occur intermittently at different sites within the Plan area until full buildout. The construction of future development projects may generate vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used.

Construction activities could include grading, foundation work, paving, and new building framing and finishing. Detailed information regarding construction equipment and phasing for future projects implementing the Plan are not available at this time. Therefore, this analysis cannot assume that impact or vibratory pile driving activities, which can cause excessive vibration, would not be required.

Future project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.), may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV, and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 3.13-7 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet, as well as distances to the 0.08 in/sec and 0.3 in/sec PPV thresholds.

Table 3.13-7: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
Minimum Distance to
Meet 0.08 in/sec PPV
(feet)
Minimum Distance to
Meet 0.3 in/sec PPV
(feet)
Pile Driver (Impact)
upper range 1.158 271 86
typical 0.644 160 51

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1053
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 235 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
Minimum Distance to
Meet 0.08 in/sec PPV
(feet)
Minimum Distance to
Meet 0.3 in/sec PPV
(feet)
Pile Driver (Sonic)
upper range 0.734 180 57
typical 0.170 48 15
Clam shovel drop 0.202 56 18
Hydromill (slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 3 1
in rock 0.017 6 2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 58 19
Hoe Ram 0.089 27 9
Large bulldozer 0.089 27 9
Caisson drilling 0.089 27 9
Loaded trucks 0.076 23 8
Jackhammer 0.035 12 4
Small bulldozer 0.003 2 <1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

January 2025.

Pile driving has the potential of generating the highest ground vibration levels and is of primary concern to architectural damage, particularly when it occurs within 100 to 200 feet of structures.

Vibration levels generated by pile driving activities would vary depending on project conditions, such as soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used, but could exceed the recommended PPV thresholds to avoid architectural damage. Other project construction activities, such as caisson drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.), may also potentially generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity.

Depending on the proximity of existing structures to each construction site, the structural soundness of the existing buildings, and the methods of construction used, vibration levels may be high enough to damage existing structures. As with any type of construction, vibration levels may at times be perceptible. However, construction phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (pile driving and use of jackhammers and other high-power tools) would be intermittent and would only occur for short periods of time for any individual project site. By use of administrative controls, such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby businesses, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and as such would not result in a significant impact with respect to perception.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1054
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 236 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Vibration sources are controlled by SCMC Section 9.30.070, limiting construction to daytime hours, and Section 18.21.060, temporary construction vibration exemption.

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

To further reduce construction vibration, the Plan would require that the following measures are implemented by future development projects proposing construction equipment within the screening distances of vibration-sensitive receptors (refer to Table 3.13-7), to reduce constructionrelated vibration.

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, 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 vibrationsensitive 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. 1055
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 237 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Implementation of the above Plan-specific vibration control measures would reduce construction vibration generated by future development projects to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Aircraft noise exposures are controlled by General Plan Policies NOI-1.11 through NOI-1.13, SCMC Sections 18.21.050-F and 18.21.150-C, and compliance with land use compatibility standards of the San Carlos ALUCP would require a noise analysis if residential uses are located within the 55 dBA CNEL/Ldn airport noise contour and ensure appropriate mitigation measures are included at proposed noise sensitive uses. As discussed in Section 3.13.1.3, the entire Plan Area lies outside the 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour. As shown on Figure 3.13-2, the eastern corner of the Plan Area lies partially within the 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour. The project proposes mixed-use residential in the southeast portion of the Plan. While the 2035 Noise Contours for the San Carlos Airport (shown in Figure 3.13-2) do not include the 55 dBA CNEL contour line, future residential uses in the Plan area could potentially fall within the 55 dBA CNEL of the San Carlos Airport.

Impact NOI-3: Future residential uses under the Plan could potentially fall within the 55 dBA CNEL of the San Carlos Airport.

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.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR found that adherence to General Plan Policies NOI-1.11 and NOI1.13, SCMC Sections 18.21.050-F and 18.21.150-C, and compliance with land use compatibility standards of the San Carlos ALUCP, would ensure aircraft noise impacts associated with implementation of the Plan are considered less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1056
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 238 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant noise impact?
The geographic area for cumulative noise impacts is the Plan area and adjacent parcels and roadways, where build out of future development could contribute traffic or noise at a perceptible level.

Temporary and Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise Levels As discussed under checklist question a), the Plan does not propose any specific development or construction and, therefore temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels associated with specific development proposals cannot be quantified. Future cumulative projects would, however, be required to implement construction noise control strategies and construction best management practices pursuant to General Plan Policy NOI-1.8 and limit construction hours to those specified in SCMC Section 9.30.070. Further, future cumulative development would be required to comply with City noise standards set forth in the General Plan and SCMC, including General Plan Policy NOI-1.6 and 1.10, which requires a qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review mechanical equipment systems during final design of the proposed project consistent with standards City practice. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative noise impact.

As discussed under checklist question a), the Plan would not result in a significant cumulative permanent noise level increase on roadway segments when compared to existing conditions.

Groundborne Vibration
Future development projects under the Plan would be required to comply with the SCMC and would implement vibration control measures, as outlined above under checklist question c).

Consistent with the findings of the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, adherence to SCMC Section.30.070 and Section 18.21.060 would ensure that the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable groundborne vibration or noise impact.

Airport Noise
In accordance with General Plan Policies NOI-1.11 and NOI-1.13, future cumulative residential development within the 55 dBA CNEL would implement mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts from aircraft operations. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative aircraft noise impact to people working and residing near San Carlos Airport.

As discussed above, buildout of the Plan would have a less than significant cumulative noise impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1057
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 239 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.13.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. Bay Area Air District), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts. The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of San Carlos has General Plan policies (NOI-1.1, NOI-1.4, NOI-1.5, and NOI-1.13) that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project or plan area.

Future Exterior and Interior Noise Environment
Exterior Noise
Noise produced by vehicular traffic along roadways and trains in the vicinity of Plan Area could potentially expose the proposed land uses to levels exceeding the exterior compatibility thresholds.

Future exterior noise levels at a distance of 75 feet from the centerline of the primary roadways within the Plan Area would typically range from 63 dBA Ldn along Taylor Way between Industrial Road and Old County Road to 76 dBA Ldn along Harbor Boulevard, south of Old County Road. Future exterior noise levels within 75 feet of the nearest through lane of U.S. 101 would be 84 dBA Ldn.

Interior Noise
Residential
Standard residential construction provides approximately 15 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise reduction, assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Where exterior noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn, the inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation is often the method selected to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels by closing the windows to control noise. Where noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn, forced-air mechanical ventilation systems and sound-rated construction methods are normally required. Such methods or materials may include a combination of smaller window and door sizes as a percentage of the total building façade facing the noise source, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated exterior wall assemblies, and mechanical ventilation so windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion.

Commercial, Office, and Industrial Uses
Standard construction materials for commercial, office, and industrial uses would provide about 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. The inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation systems is normally required so that windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion and would provide an additional 5 dBA reduction. The standard construction materials in combination with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the daytime threshold of 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) at most commercial, office, and industrial uses.

Spaces where lower noise levels would be desired, such as private offices and conference rooms, may benefit from additional noise control in order to meet a lower, more desirable interior noise

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1058
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 240 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
level. Additional noise control could be accomplished by selecting higher sound-rated windows (STC 34 or greater along exterior façades).

Incorporation of General Policies NOI-1.4 and NOI-1.13 require noise studies for all projects where noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn or greater or are located within the 55 dBA CNEL/Ldn impact area of the San Carlos Airport. The policies state the following:
• Policy NOI-1.4. Require a detailed acoustic report in all cases where noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 Ldn or greater. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.
• Policy NOI-1.13. Require a noise analysis for new residential uses located within the 55 CNEL/Ldn impact area of the San Carlos Airport. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be required as conditions of project approval.

When project-level development information, such as site plans, building elevations, floor plans, and the position of buildings and outdoor use areas within the Plan Area are known, site-specific project-level noise studies would be conducted to confirm the recommendations for exterior and interior noise reduction methods for both residential and nonresidential uses. An acoustical study shall be conducted when an application is received for a development project that could be exposed to noise greater than that deemed acceptable by the maximum noise levels specified by the City. The study shall determine compliance with the noise and land use compatibility standards, identify potential noise impacts, and propose site-specific measures to reduce exposure to exterior and interior noise levels that exceed maximum permissible levels.

A project-specific acoustical analysis shall be prepared, in compliance with State Building Codes and City noise standards, to ensure that the design incorporates controls to reduce interior noise levels specified in Policy NOI-1.5. The policy states the following:
• Policy NOI-1.5. New development of noise-sensitive land uses proposed in noise-impacted areas shall incorporate effective mitigation measures into the project design to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to the following acceptable levels. a. For new single-family residential development, maintain a standard of 60 Ldn (day/night average noise level) for exterior noise in private use areas. b. For new multi-family residential development maintain a standard of 65 Ldn in community outdoor recreation areas. Noise standards are not applied to private decks and balconies and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis in the downtown core. c. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 Ldn in all new residential units (single- and multifamily). Development sites exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 Ldn shall be analyzed following protocols in Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208, A, Sound Transmission Control, 2001 Building Code Chapter 12, Appendix 1207.11.2 of the 2007 California Building Coe (or the latest version).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1059
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 241 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
d. Where new residential units (single- and multi-family) would be exposed to intermittent noise levels generated during train operations, maximum railroad noise levels inside homes shall not exceed 50 dBA in bedrooms or 55 dBA in other occupied spaces. These single event limits are only applicable where there are normally four or more train operations per day.

Future Vibration Environment
The Plan could facilitate the construction of new buildings in the vicinity of the existing Caltrain tracks. Old County Road borders the Plan Area to the west, and the Caltrain tracks run parallel to Old County Road just outside the Plan Area boundary. The centerline of the nearest tracks would be approximately 60 to 135 feet from the Plan Area’s western boundary.

Assuming existing rail activity plus additional California High Speed Rail activity under future buildout conditions, more than 70 trains would pass through San Carlos in a 24-hour period.

Therefore, the vibration level thresholds for train pass-bys would be 65 VdB for buildings where vibration would interfere with sensitive interior operations (e.g., research labs), 72 VdB for residential buildings, and 75 VdB for commercial, office, and institutional buildings.

While vibration measurements were not made within the Plan Area, vibration levels due to train pass-bys were measured for a nearby project.94 At 90 to 100 feet, vibration levels were measured to be 65 to 71 VdB in this previous study. Using these source levels, minimum setback distances for residential and nonresidential buildings along the western boundary of the Plan Area are summarized in Table 3.13-8 below.

Table 3.13-8: Minimum Distances to the Nearest Tracks to meet Vibration Thresholds for Proposed Buildings within the Plan Area
Roadway Segment
Distance from Edge of Nearest Tracks, feet
Buildings with Sensitive
Interiors
(65 VdB)
Residences
(72 VdB)
Nonresidential
(75 VdB)
Old County Road 335 75 40
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin. Northeast Area Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Assessment. February 2025.

Vibration Control Measure Project Requirement:
• Based on the setback distances presented in Table 3.13-8, project-specific vibration analyses shall be prepared for residential buildings proposed along Old County Road within 75 feet of the nearest Caltrain track and for buildings with interiors sensitive to vibration that are within 335 feet of the nearest Caltrain track. These studies should include vibration 94 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 789 Old County Road Noise Assessment. June 21, 2024.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1060
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 242 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
measurements at the project sites and comparisons of the measurements to the established FTA standards in order to verify vibration and land use compatibility consistent with General Policies NOI-1.7 and NOI-1.14.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1061
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 243 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.14 Population and Housing

3.14.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing-element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the statemandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inventory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non-governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis.95 The City of San Carlos Housing Element and related land use policies were last updated in January 2023 for the 2023-2031 housing cycle.

Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified PDAs. PDAs are areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth. 96 ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. These allocations are designed to lay the foundation for Plan Bay Area 2050’s long-term envisioned growth pattern for the region. ABAG also develops a series of forecasts and models to project the growth of population, housing units, and jobs in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Forecasting and Modeling Report, which is a technical overview of the growth forecasts and land use models upon which Plan Bay Area 2050 is based.
95 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed September 12, 2024. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/index.shtml. 96 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050.

October 21, 2021. Page 20.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1062
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 244 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating population and housing impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
LU-1.2 Encourage development of higher density housing and support additional job growth within the TOD corridor while being sensitive to surrounding uses.

LU-5.6 Strive for a balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.

LU-5.11 Continue to require developers to pay their fair share of the capital cost of public facilities through appropriate development impact and utility connection fees.

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 population and housing as follows:
• Title 18, Zoning Code, divides the city into distinct zones in order to implement the land use and development policies in the General Plan. Among the primary objectives of the Zoning Code are the regulation of building form, placement, density, and the provision of sufficient parking and open spaces in conjunction with development. • Chapter 18.04, Residential Districts, serves to preserve, protect, and enhance the character of the City’s different residential neighborhoods. It also promotes residential development that is compatible with environmental constraints and neighborhood characteristics. • Chapter 18.05, Mixed-Use Districts, serves to provide for the orderly, well planned, and balanced development of mixed-use districts
• Chapter 18.16, Affordable Housing programs, the purpose of this chapter is to Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within the City as mandated by State law, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. This chapter establishes below market rate housing requirements and provides exemptions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1063
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 245 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Existing Conditions
As of 2024, San Carlos had a population of 29,648, with an average persons per household of

2.47. 97, 98ABAG estimates that San Carlos will have a population of 35,250 by 2040.99 The Plan area is currently developed with approximately 2,617,497 square feet of light industrial, office, and institutional uses. There are currently no residential uses within the Plan. Under existing conditions, the Plan supports approximately 6,933 workers.

3.14.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on population and housing, would the project:
1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Implementation of the Plan would result in an overall intensification of development within the Plan area and would introduce new employment and residential uses over an approximately 20- year period but does not include specific development proposals.

The Plan Area currently has no housing units and therefore, zero residential population. The Plan Area currently supports 2,617,497 square feet of light industrial, office, and institutional uses, which equates to approximately 6,933 jobs.100,101 As described in Section 2.3 of this EIR, the Plan would allow for a net increase of 1,890 residential units and 4,508,000 square feet of non-residential uses.

The 4,508,000 square feet of new employment square footage would result in approximately 9,794 97 State of California. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. May 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ 98 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 99 City of San Carlos. City of San Carlos Focused General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2021120442). October 2022. 100 Strategic Economics. DRAFT: Public Services Cost Assessment. October 15, 2024. 101 Assumes 1 job per 366 square feet of R&D; 1 job per 247 square feet of office; 1 job per 1,049 square feet of industrial, and 1 job per 300 square feet of hospital.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1064
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 246 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
net new jobs and the 1,890 residential units would result in approximately 3,611102 new residents.

Table 3.14-1 below provides a summary of the number of residents, employment square footage, and jobs/employees estimated under existing conditions and the proposed Plan.

Table 3.14-1: Estimated Residents and Employes Under Existing Conditions and Proposed Plan Residents Employment Square
Footage
Jobs/Employees
Existing Conditions 0 2,617,497 6,933
Plan 3,611 6,707,497 16,7271
Net Change 3,611 4,508,000 9,794
Source: Strategic Economics. DRAFT: Public Services Cost Assessment. October 15, 2024.

Notes:
1 Under the Plan, 418,000 square feet of non-residential uses would be removed. This equates to 562 fewer jobs ([6,933-562] + 10,356).

The associated growth resulting from buildout of the Plan was analyzed in the buildout projections for the 2045 General Plan Reset. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan would not introduce a substantial amount of unplanned population. Both the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR and this EIR for the Plan have been prepared for the purpose of evaluating growth in the Plan area.

The Plan includes infrastructure improvements, including a new multi-modal street network (see Figure 2.4-5) and planned utility improvements (refer to Section 2.3.4). These infrastructure improvements would serve the existing and future development that would occur under the proposed Plan. The Plan does not include extension of roads or other infrastructure that would serve additional growth beyond what is proposed by the Plan. For these reasons, the proposed Plan would not indirectly result in unplanned population growth in an area. (Less than Significant Impact)
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As described in Section 3.14.1.2, the Plan currently has no residential units. For this reason, implementation of the proposed Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (No Impact) 102 Assumes 1.99 persons per household. Source: Strategic Economics. DRAFT: Public Services Cost Assessment.

October 15, 2024.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1065
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 247 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact?
The geographic area for cumulative population and housing impacts is the City boundaries. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan Reset would not induce a substantial amount of unplanned population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The 2045 General Plan Reset would accommodate the proposed new increase in growth in the City (including the proposed Plan).

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to population and housing. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1066
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 248 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.15 Public Services

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is the official fire code for the State of California (State) and all political subdivisions. It is found in CCR Title 24, Part 9, and, like the CBC, it is revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commission. Also like the CBC, the CFC is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions. Typical fire safety requirements include the installation of sprinklers in most new buildings, including all high-rise buildings, all residential buildings, and other facilities; fire resistant rated construction; construction in designated wildland fire hazard severity zones; fire alarm systems and exiting requirements; fire safety requirements during construction; the regulation of hazardous materials not covered by the unified program; and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1067
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 249 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

Regional and 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 public service impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
CSS-7.1 Provide efficient and timely processing of development review and building permit applications, while maintaining quality standards in accordance with City Ordinances. Look for solutions to problems, be responsive to community concerns, promote positive CSS-7.8 Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate services are available, or when a program to provide services has been approved by the applicable district and the City.

CSS-7.9 Ensure that adequate public services and facilities are planned and constructed to accommodate the population of the city.

CSS-8.3 Ensure that all residents have access to library services including access to computers and other technology.

CSS-8.4 Evaluate through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process how new development impacts schools, as the quality of San Carlos schools is a primary asset of the city.

LU-5.11 Continue to require developers to pay their fair share of the capital cost of public facilities through appropriate development impact and utility connection fees.

LU-9.16 Require a contribution of parkland and/or fees in-lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of all new residential subdivisions.

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 land use and planning as follows:
• Chapter 15.04.040, California Building Code, adopts the 2022 CBC with amendments and is referred to as the City of San Carlos Building Code.
• Chapter 15.04.110, California Fire Code, adopts the 2021 International Fire Code and the 2022 California Fire Code with amendments, referred to as the San Carlos Fire Ordinance. • Chapter 3.34, Park Facility Development Fee, as known as the Park Facility Development Fee Law of the City of San Carlos, applies to new residential development buildings in San Carlos. The Park Facility Development fee for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is $2,709 per bedroom.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1068
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 250 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Section 17.32.030, Park and recreation land dedications or in-lieu fees, states that where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the General Plan, and the park or facility is to be located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to dedicate land for park and recreational facilities sufficient in size to serve the residents of the subdivision area. Additionally, if there are no park or recreation facilities designation but the subdivision is within a one-half- mile radius of a neighborhood park or recreational facility the subdivider shall be required to pay a cash payment in lieu of the land equal to the value of the land.

Fire Inspection Fees
Fire Inspection Fees are generated by the Redwood City/San Carlos Fire Department on an annual basis and are $292 for Fiscal Year 2024-25.103 The primary goal for the Annual Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program is to reduce the number of deaths, injuries and property losses from fire.

Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities Master Plan 2009-2029 The purpose of the Parks Master Plan is to provide the City with a long-term vision for its park system. The Parks Master Plan addresses the City’s park service standards, including park acres per capita, walking distance to park facilities, ideas for new parks, and improvements to existing parks.

The Parks Master Plan assumes a population of 34,264 in 2030, which is approximately 3,435 more people than the existing conditions of San Carlos in 2024. The City is currently in the process of updating the Parks Master Plan. The following service standards are discussed in the Parks Master Plan:
• Parks Provision Standard: Provide 2.5 acres of developed/active parks for every 1,000 residents in San Carlos.
• Trails Provision Standard: Provide one-mile of hiking trail per 1,000 residents. • Walkability Policy: Locate a park or recreational facility within ¼- to ½-mile of every resident.

Trails Connections Plan
The San Carlos Trails Committee completed a Trails Connections Plan that was adopted by City Council in February 2007. The Trail Connections Plan identified and prioritized 14 possible connections to our local trail system as well as neighboring regional open space parks and trails, including Pulgas Ridge, and trails within the City of Belmont and the County of San Mateo.

San Carlos Hillside Trails Plan
Adopted in 2012, the San Carlos Hillside Trails Plan identifies 1.62 miles of new trails within Big Canyon Park, Eaton Park, and Devonshire Canyon. The Hillside Trails Plan also provides design guidelines and construction protocols, in addition to a parking program for the identified trails. 103 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1069
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 251 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in San Carlos are provided under contract with the RC-SCFD, which provides fire protection, hazardous materials response, disaster preparedness, and emergency medical response. The RC-SCFD has two fire stations in San Carlos: Station 13 and Station 16. Station 13 is staffed with a captain, a firefighter, and a firefighter/paramedic and houses Engine 13, Reserve Engine 113, and Reserve Battalion 103. Station 16 was recently replaced with a new station. 104
According to the Standards of Cover Study and Community Risk Assessment for the Redwood City Fire Department, the RC-SCFD is currently challenged in three ways: response times, rising rate of medical incidents, and limitations associated with having a single ladder truck and Battalion Chief.

Out of five response components, which include call processing/dispatch, crew turnout, first-unit travel, first unit call to arrive, and Effective Response Force (ERF) call to arrive, the RC-SCFD exceeds the response time best practice in all but one area—call processing/dispatch. Additionally, the RCSCFD is challenged by the rising demand for low-acuity EMS responses for patients that seldom need immediate emergency room care and reduce the available capacity for serious, life threatening fires and EMS events. Lastly, due to the RC-SCFD only having one ladder truck and Battalion Chief / Incident Commander, response times are affected. To improve this, the Standards of Cover Study and Community Risk Assessment for the Redwood City Fire Department recommends that a second ladder truck and Battalion Chief / Incident Commander be added at Station 13 in San Carlos.105
Police Protection Services
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO) has been contracted to provide law enforcement services to the City of San Carlos since October 2010. Within the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, the San Carlos Police Bureau assists with activities in San Carlos and is located at 600 Elm Street.

Within the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office there are 800 employees and 98,778 calls for service in 2023.

The national average for the standard ratio of officers per 1,000 residents is 2.4 sworn police officers per 1,000 residents. The department is currently falling short of meeting this national standard.106
The national standard for meeting priority 1 calls is 5 minutes or less. The police department is currently meeting this response time standard; the average response time in 2023 was 4 minutes 23 seconds.107
104 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1070
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 252 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The SMCSO has indicated that existing stations are adequate and there are no existing plans for expansion or relocation.108
Schools
The project area is served by the Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District (BRSSD) and San Carlos School District (SCSD), as shown on Figure 3.15-1. Sequoia Union High School District (SUHSD) serves all public high school students in the Plan area. As noted previously, there are no residences currently located within the Plan area, and therefore the Plan area does not contribute students to area schools.

San Carlos School District
The current enrollment of SCSD is 2,875 students, which is 177 more students than the 2,698 projected in the most recent Enrollment Projection Consultants Demographic Report from February 2023.109 SCSD is at capacity for grade-levels TK through 5. In fall of 2025, TK will be planned to move to a 10:1 ratio which is anticipated to bring in an additional 50 to 100 students in the grade level, exceeding capacity. In preparation for this, the TK classroom space has expanded by installing three modular classrooms in Arundel, Brittan Acres, and Heather Elementary Schools during the summer of 2024.

Belmont-Redwood Shores School District
The current enrollment of BRSSD is 4,019 students.110 Enrollment in BRSSD has declined over the past five years.

Sequoia Union High School District
SUHSD serves San Carlos, Belmont, and Redwood City high school students. Overall, SUHSD serves approximately 9,741 students on the Midpeninsula with seven schools.111 Most of the students within San Carlos attend Carlmont High, with some of the students attending Sequoia High.112 The capacity for Carlmont High School is 2,343 students. Its current enrollment is 2,360 students, exceeding its capacity by 17 students. The capacity for Sequoia High School is 2,515 students. Its current enrollment is 1,903 students, so it is not exceeding its capacity. 108 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 109 Ibid. 110 Education Data Partnership. “Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary.” Accessed February 13, 2025. https://www.ed-data.org/district/San-Mateo/Belmont--Redwood-Shores-Elementary 111 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 112 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1071
Source: MIG, 2022.
0 .25 .5 1 Mile
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FIGURE 3.15-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 253 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 254 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Parks
San Carlos contains 62.5 acres of traditional developed parkland. 113 These parks and open space
areas provide passive recreation facilities, including trails, views, natural vegetation and wildlife and environmental education facilities. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department manages 16 parks, including 3 community parks, 4 neighborhood parks, 5 mini parks, 2 open space parks, and 2 dog parks. Additionally, Eaton Park and Big Canyon Park offer 73 acres of natural open space in the City of San Carlos.

Other open space areas around the city are owned and operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), San Mateo County, and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

MROSD manages 26 open space preserves totaling over 57,000 acres.

San Carlos is currently not meeting the standard establish in the City’s Parks Master Plan of 2.5 acres of traditional parkland for every 1,000 residents. However, taking into account the City’s existing open space, the park standard is met.

Libraries
San Mateo County Libraries is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), an independent entity with its own Governing Board, consisting of elected officials from each member of the county.

The San Carlos branch of the San Mateo County library system is located at 610 Elm Street, adjacent to City Hall. This library offers a large collection of books and other materials for all ages, computers and Internet access, services such as story times, making, afterschool programs, language conversation clubs, and technology classes. The San Carlos Library currently operates with 11 permanent positions and 9.75 full-time equivalent positions. The San Carlos Library is open 61 hours, seven days per week.

The San Carlos Library is 25 years old and in need of several significant improvements.114 Currently, the San Carlos Library is expanding onto the second floor of the current facility, adding 1,000 square feet for a makerspace that is estimated to be completed in 2025.115

3.15.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on public services, would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
113 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 114 Ibid. 115 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1073
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 255 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services? As discussed in Section 3.14 Population and Housing, the Plan would result in a net increase of approximately 3,611 residents and 9,794 employees over a 20-year period (refer to Table 3.14-1).

The increase in development and population in the Plan area would result in a gradual increase in demand for fire protection services. The associated growth resulting from buildout of the Plan was analyzed in the buildout projections for the 2045 General Plan Reset. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that RC-SCFD identified the need for additional staff to meet population growth in the City. As previously described, the RC-SCFD response times exceed the best practice benchmarks, especially for travel time and multi-unit responses. To improve coverage, RC-SCFD recommends that a second ladder truck and Battalion Chief / Incident Commander be added at Station 13 in San Carlos. Future construction of new fire facilities, or renovation or expansion of existing facilities, would be subject to separate project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as required, to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as needed. The estimated timing or location of these future fire facility improvements are not known at this time, so project-specific environmental impacts that could occur from their construction and operation cannot be determined at this time.

Future development would include new housing and non-residential development, with associated increases to the resident and employee population served by the RC-SCFD. In addition, future development under the Plan could result in buildings up to 155 feet in height above grade or above mean sea level, whichever is more restrictive. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code which regulates, among other topics, hazardous material handling, emergency access, and fire protection systems, including automatic sprinkler system, fire extinguishers, and fire alarms. The City would review plans and conduct construction inspections to ensure that new development complies with existing building and fire code requirements. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that, while future development would increase demand on fire protection services, the incremental nature of growth combined with adherence to regulations and procedures already in place, would ensure that RC-SCFD would be involved as future development occurs. Additionally, due to the 2045 General Plan Reset being a

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1074
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 256 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
program-level document, project-specific environmental impacts that could occur from future fire facility improvements were too speculative to analyze as part of the 2045 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, future construction of new fire facilities, or renovation or expansion of existing facilities, would be subject to separate project-level environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as required, to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as needed.

Compliance with existing regulations, General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and future projectlevel environmental review would need to consider impacts on reliability and response times to ensure that impacts on fire protection facilities would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services? Future development would include new housing and non-residential development, with associated increases to the resident and employee population served by the SMCSO. As discussed in Section

3.15.1.2, the SMCSO has indicated that existing stations are adequate and there are no existing plans for expansion or relocation. According to the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, compliance with State and local regulations and the General Plan goals, policies, and actions described under Section

3.15.1.1, Environmental Setting would ensure that police protection services continue to adequately serve the City (including the Plan). (Less than Significant Impact) c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Future development within the buildout horizon of the Plan would cause an increase in student population over the next 20 years. The increase in students would be gradual as housing units are added to the Plan area. The public school districts that serve the Plan area would continue to collect the development impact fees, which each district has adopted, throughout the horizon of the Plan.

Therefore, future development would incrementally contribute toward facility upgrades and expansions, which, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995, has been deemed sufficient to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation for the impacts from the proposed project, regardless of whether the fees are adequate to fully fund the expansion or construction of needed facilities. Future construction of new or renovated school facilities to accommodate growth under the proposed project would be subject to separate project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as required, to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1075
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 257 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
measures as needed to reduce potential environmental impacts. The estimated timing or location of future additional facility improvements are not known at this time and would be planned and undertaken by each school district as needed, so project-specific environmental impacts that could occur from their construction and operation cannot be determined at this time and would be determined by each school district acting as lead agency.

With the required payment of development impact fees for new development pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995, General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and future environmental review at the project level for any school facility improvements, impacts to the public-school districts that serve the Plan area would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?
As discussed in Section 3.15.1.2, the City currently provides 2.2 acres of parks per 1,000 residents (which is below the 2.5 acres of park per 1,000 residents standard). Buildout of the Plan would increase demand on parks. According to the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, growth from the General Plan (including the Plan) would decrease the ratio of parkland per 1,000 population to 1.34 acres of parks per 1,000 residents by 2045. However, the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR acknowledges this represents a “worst case” scenario, as it is expected that parks will be acquired, expanded, and/or made publicly accessible as part of private development over the next 20 years. Potential impacts would occur if the physical expansion or construction of a park would cause significant environmental impacts. The estimated timing or location of such facilities or the exact nature of these facilities are not known at this time, so project-specific environmental impacts that could occur from their construction and operation cannot be determined at this time, and would be determined by the City as lead agency as individual projects were evaluated and as the City undertook expansion of existing or development of new park facilities.

SCMC Section 17.32.030 would continue to require residential development under the Plan to either provide parkland or pay in-lieu fees to the City to dedicate parkland elsewhere. Additionally, SCMC Chapter 3.34 requires new residential projects to pay park facility development fees. This would result in an incremental addition of parkland if a residential subdivision or residential development is proposed in the City. While no specific dedicated park facilities are included as part of the proposed Plan, future development on properties greater than one acre would be required to dedicate 15 percent of the total site area toward open space. 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.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1076
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 258 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Since future residential development would be required to comply with payment of impact fees pursuant to SCMC Section 17.32.030, implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts to park and recreational facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities? New residential and non-residential development would increase the resident and daytime population of San Carlos, incrementally increasing utilization of library services. As discussed in Section 3.15.1.2, the San Carlos Library is in need of several significant improvements, which inhibits the library’s ability to meet the community’s library needs. Currently the San Carlos Library is expanding onto the second floor of the current facility. Library services are primarily funded by County property taxes, including Measure K, passed in 2016, which supports essential County services and critical facilities. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that the potential need for future library facility expansions would be assessed as development occurs. Future construction of new or renovated library facilities to accommodate growth under the proposed project would be subject to separate project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as required, to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as needed to reduce potential environmental impacts. The estimated timing or location of future facility improvements are not known at this time, so project-specific environmental impacts that could occur from their construction and operation cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, development under the Plan would not require the construction of new library facilities beyond what was analyzed in the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant public services impact?
As discussed above, the associated growth resulting from buildout of the Plan was analyzed in the buildout projections for the 2045 General Plan Reset. Under Section 15152(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, where a lead agency has determined that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, the effect is not treated as significant for purposes of later environmental review and need not be discussed in detail.

Fire Protection Services
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations, General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and future project-level environmental review would ensure that impacts on fire protection facilities would be less than significant. Future cumulative development

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1077
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 259 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
would be required to comply with the CFC and the City would review plans and conduct construction inspections to ensure that new development complies with existing building and fire code requirements. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that compliance with the CFC would ensure any new development proposed in the City meets the most current building and fire codes, thereby increasing safety of the buildings, and reducing the likelihood of a fire emergency, subsequently reducing demand on RC-SCFD services.

Police Protection Services
As discussed under checklist question b), the SMCSO has indicated that existing stations are adequate and there are no existing plans for expansion or relocation. According to the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, compliance with State and local regulations and the General Plan goals, policies, and actions described under Section 3.15.1.1, Environmental Setting would ensure that police protection services continue to adequately serve cumulative development in the City.

Schools
As required by state law (Government Code Section 65996), cumulative projects that include residential development are required to pay school fees to mitigate the increase in demand on schools generated by new development to a less than significant level. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR, cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact on local schools.

Parks
As discussed under checklist question d), growth under the General Plan (including the Plan) would result in increased demand for parks. As a result, the local service providers would need to expand and construct additional parks and other recreational facilities to meet the increased demand and maintain existing service levels. State law allows jurisdictions to require additional development to fund park improvements, and the SCMC requires new residential development to pay development impact fees to help fund parks and recreation. Since future cumulative residential development would be required to comply with payment of impact fees pursuant to SCMC Section 17.32.030, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to parks and recreational facilities.

Libraries
As discussed under checklist question e), the San Carlos Library is in need of several significant improvements, which inhibits the library’s ability to meet the community’s library needs. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that payment of County property taxes would ensure adequate library services over the course of the General Plan buildout (including the Plan). Additionally, future construction of new or renovated library facilities would be subject to separate project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as needed, with the Library JPA acting as lead agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to library services.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1078
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 260 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
As documented above, buildout under the 2045 General Plan Reset (including the Plan) would not contribute to a significant cumulative public services impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1079
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 261 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.16 Recreation

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

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 recreation impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
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-1.12 Promote the development of publicly accessible urban trails throughout the city to provide access to the natural environment and facilitate non-motorized transportation options.

LU-5.11 Continue to require developers to pay their fair share of the capital cost of public facilities through appropriate development impact and utility connection fees.

LU-8.7 Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings.

LU-9.6 Encourage the location of support facilities such as schools, parks and churches within or near residential neighborhoods.

LU-9.7 Encourage the development of community gardens to provide opportunity for interactions and increase residents’ access to healthy foods.

LU-9.8 Encourage developers of new or expanded multi-family residential projects to include gardening spaces for residents of the development as part of the landscaping requirement.

LU-9.16 Require a contribution of parkland and/or fees in-lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of all new residential subdivisions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1080
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 262 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
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.

PR-2.1 Consider the recreational needs and interests of all segments of the San Carlos community when evaluating decisions relating to parks facilities.

PR-2.3 Continue to support implementation of trail connections as identified in the City’s Potential Trail Connections Plan.

PR-2.7 Encourage new development to provide trails and trail connection easements or dedications where feasible and appropriate.

San Carlos Municipal Code
The SCMC includes various directives pertaining to parks and recreation. The SCMC is organized by title, chapter, and section, and in some cases, articles. Most provisions related to parks and recreation impacts are included in Title 3, Revenue and Finance and Title 17, Subdivisions. • Chapter 3.34, Park Facility Development Fee, as known as the Park Facility Development Fee Law of the City of San Carlos, applies to new residential development buildings in San Carlos. The Park Facility Development fee for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is $2,709 per bedroom. • Section 17.32.030, Park and recreation land dedications or in-lieu fees, states that where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the General Plan, and the park or facility is to be located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to dedicate land for park and recreational facilities sufficient in size to serve the residents of the subdivision area. Additionally, if there are no park or recreation facilities designation but the subdivision is within a one-half- mile radius of a neighborhood park or recreational facility the subdivider shall be required to pay a cash payment in lieu of the land equal to the value of the land.

Parks, Open Space, Buildings and other Recreational Facilities Master Plan 2009-2029 The purpose of the Parks Master Plan is to provide the City with a long-term vision for its park system. The Parks Master Plan addresses the City’s park service standards, including park acres per capita, walking distance to park facilities, ideas for new parks, and improvements to existing parks.

The Parks Master Plan assumes a population of 34,264 in 2030, which is approximately 3,435 more people than the existing conditions of San Carlos in 2024. The City is currently in the process of updating the Parks Master Plan. The following service standards are discussed in the Parks Master Plan:
• Parks Provision Standard: Provide 2.5 acres of developed/active parks for every 1,000 residents in San Carlos.
• Trails Provision Standard: Provide one-mile of hiking trail per 1,000 residents. • Walkability Policy: Locate a park or recreational facility within ¼- to ½-mile of every resident.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1081
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 263 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Trails Connections Plan
The San Carlos Trails Committee completed a Trails Connections Plan that was adopted by City Council in February 2007. The Trail Connections Plan identified and prioritized 14 possible connections to our local trail system as well as neighboring regional open space parks and trails, including Pulgas Ridge, and trails within the City of Belmont and the County of San Mateo.

San Carlos Hillside Trails Plan
Adopted in 2012, the San Carlos Hillside Trails Plan identifies 1.62 miles of new trails within Big Canyon Park, Eaton Park, and Devonshire Canyon. The Hillside Trails Plan also provides design guidelines and construction protocols, in addition to a parking program for the identified trails.

Existing Conditions
Parks
As discussed in Section 3.15 Public Services, San Carlos contains 62.5 acres of traditional developed parkland. San Carlos is currently not meeting the standard establish in the City’s Parks Master Plan of 2.5 acres of traditional parkland for every 1,000 residents. However, taking into account the City’s existing open space (see below), the park standard is met.

Open Space
Other open space areas around the city are owned and operated by the MROSD, San Mateo County, and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. MROSD manages 26 open space preserves totaling over 57,000 acres.

3.16.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on recreation:
1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1082
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 264 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed in Section 3.15 Public Services under checklist question d), buildout of the Plan would increase demand on parks and recreation facilities. As noted above, the City is not currently meeting the 2.5 acres of park per 1,000 residents standard (unless open space is included). The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR notes that parks will be acquired, expanded, and/or made publicly accessible as part of private development over the next 20 years. Further, SCMC Section 17.32.030 would continue to require residential development under the Plan to either provide parkland or pay in-lieu fees to the City to dedicate parkland elsewhere. Additionally, SCMC Chapter 3.34 requires new residential projects to pay park facility development fees. This would result in an incremental addition of parkland if a residential subdivision or residential development is proposed in the city.

However, no specific dedicated park facilities are included as part of the proposed Plan.

Since future residential development would be required to comply with payment of impact fees pursuant to SCMC Section 17.32.030, implementation of the Plan would not substantially deteriorate existing park facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No specific parks or recreational facilities are proposed as part of the Plan. However, future development on properties greater than one acre would be required to dedicate 15 percent of the total site area toward open space. In addition, the Plan proposes to facilitate 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. The Plan is a policy-level document that would facilitate future residential and non-residential development over a 20-year period. As discussed in Section 2.0 Project Description, properties in the Plan that are greater than one acres (gross) would be required to decide 15 percent of the total site toward open space. Additional open space requirements are required in the Sea Level Rise Priority Zone and Creek Front Zone (refer to Table 2.4-7). In addition, the Plan proposes to establish a trail along Belmont Creek to connect Old County Road to Industrial Road. The environmental impacts associated with development of the proposed park and open space are discussed at a program-level throughout this EIR as part of the project. The physical impacts of constructing the park and open space would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with existing regulations including General Plan and Specific Plan policies identified in Sections 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, 3.13 Noise, 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1083
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 265 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant recreation impact?
The associated growth resulting from buildout of the Plan was analyzed in the buildout projections for the 2045 General Plan Reset. Under Section 15152(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, where a lead agency has determined that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, the effect is not treated as significant for purposes of later environmental review and need not be discussed in detail. Growth under the General Plan Reset (including the Plan) would result in increased demand for parks. As a result, the local service providers would need to expand and construct additional parks and other recreational facilities to meet the increased demand and maintain existing service levels. State law allows jurisdictions to require additional development to fund park improvements, and the SCMC requires new residential development to pay development impact fees to help fund parks and recreation. Since future cumulative residential development would be required to comply with payment of impact fees pursuant to SCMC Section 17.32.030, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to parks and recreational facilities. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1084
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 266 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.17 Transportation
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Transportation Analysis completed by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates dated December 13, 2024. This report is included as Appendix G to this DEIR.

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a VMT metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in determining the significance of transportation impacts. Local jurisdictions were required by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize LCI to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct LCI to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on LCI guidance.

Regional and Local
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investment for revenues from federal, state, regional and local sources through 2050.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1085
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 267 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Congestion Management Program
C/CAG is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65088, each CMA is required to prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP) on a biennial basis. The CMP includes monitoring and evaluation of LOS along the designated CMP network, which includes U.S. 101 and the El Camino Real (State Route 82)/Holly Street intersection in San Carlos. With the updating of CEQA per the requirements of SB 743, maintenance of LOS standards is no longer part of the environmental review process. The last CMP update was in 2023.

C/CAG Transportation Demand Management Policy
The C/CAG TDM Policy provides guidelines regarding analysis of the transportation impacts of development projects in municipalities in San Mateo County. Unless exempted from the policy, local jurisdictions are required to notify C/CAG of incoming development that is estimated to generate an average of 100 trips per day. For affected projects, applicants are required to complete a TDM checklist and implement measures to reduce the estimated number of trips and their adverse effects on traffic operations. The type and magnitude of TDM measures are based on the land use type and project size.

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 transportation impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
LU-1.3 Ensure that development within the TOD corridor maintains and improves the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.

LU-1.4 Establish and support the El Camino Real/Caltrain multimodal TOD corridor for the purpose of the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor.

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

LU-3.10 Encourage the creation of safe, walkable environments that include elements such as wide, smooth sidewalks, good lighting, safe crosswalks, clear signage, curb bulbouts, curb cuts, street furniture and trees and traffic-calming measures which allow people of all ages and abilities to exercise and safely access public transportation, community centers and schools and goods and services.

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

CSH-1.1 Widths of streets and highways should be sufficient to address existing and projected traffic volumes, emergency access requirements, while providing positive pedestrian and bicycle experiences.

CSH-2.2 Provide for adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities as viable transportation modes in San Carlos, as recommended in the San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1086
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 268 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
CSH-2.3 Access to public transportation facilities should be convenient and designed to encourage use of public transit.

CSH-3.1 Strive to reduce baseline and development-related traffic by implementing and enforcing the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance.

CSH-3.2 Support city-wide efforts to reduce vehicular trips within and through the community.

CSH-3.3 Support the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management measures in new development to reduce traffic impacts.

CSH-3.4 Support Smart Growth and Sustainability principles to reduce travel time from house to jobs, provide affordable transportation to all members of the community, allow compact mixed-use development and decrease dependency on automobiles.

CSH-3.5 Street and right-of-way widths should be designed and constructed in accordance with the street standards established in this plan, the City Subdivision Ordinance and Standard Details. However, flexibility for street widths should be permitted with sensitivity to slope, neighborhood character, traffic volume, emergency access requirements, and pedestrian/bicycle needs.

CSH-3.9 Where appropriate and relevant, based on the location and scope of a development project under consideration, the City shall consider regional, as well as local traffic impacts when assessing new development projects.

CSH-4.2 Reduce potential conflicts, safety hazards and physical obstacles between bicyclists, automobiles and pedestrians and ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and including any other applicable State and federal laws, regulations and guidelines.

CSH-4.3 The safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, as well as motorists shall be considered in street design wherever possible.

CSH-5.1 Connect neighborhoods, school sites, activity centers, transportation centers, recreational sites and other important community amenities with sidewalks, pedestrian paths, trails and bikeways.

CSH-5.3 Support an interconnected system of pedestrian ways, paths, trails, bikeways and transit routes within the city and between adjacent communities.

CSH-6.1 Bicycling and walking facilities should be incorporated into all new development projects to the maximum extent feasible.

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.

San Carlos Complete Streets Policy
The City adopted a Complete Streets Policy in 2012 to support the development of a multimodal transportation network that serves all categories of users. Provisions of the policy include applying a context-sensitive approach to local conditions so that appropriate facilities will be designed to best serve the needs of residential as well as commercial areas, with consideration for the urban, suburban, or rural nature of the location.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1087
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 269 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
San Carlos Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy
In accordance with SB 743, the City adopted VMT thresholds on Nov 12, 2024 (Resolution No. 2024- 118) that were based on assessment of local needs and development characteristics, to be used in evaluating the potential VMT impacts of land development and transportation projects. Within the VMT policy certain projects are considered to have less-than-significant transportation impacts and no further transportation analysis is required. These projects include nonresidential projects under 10,000 square feet, residential projects with 10 or fewer single-family units or 15 or fewer multifamily units; projects located within Low VMT Areas or within a TPA; 100-percent-restricted affordable residential projects in infill locations; neighborhood-serving retail or public facility projects that are less than 30,000 square feet; and transportation projects that do not add vehicle capacity. Projects not screened out through the criteria above are required to complete a VMT analysis to determine if there would be a significant VMT impact. An impact would be considered significant if the following thresholds are exceeded:
• Total project-generated VMT per service population exceeds a level of 15 percent below the regionwide baseline VMT rate.
• Project-generated VMT per resident exceeds a level of 15 percent below the regionwide baseline VMT rate.
• Project-generated VMT per employee exceeds a level of 15 percent below the regionwide baseline VMT rate.
• The project increases total (boundary) countywide VMT compared to cumulative “no project” conditions.
• The project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy Plan (Plan Bay Area).

San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) was adopted in June 2020. The BPMP establishes a long-term vision for improving walking and bicycling in San Carlos and presents a strategy to develop a comprehensive bicycling and walking network that provides access to transit, schools and downtown. This plan provides guidance to City staff and the development community in building a balanced transportation system where active modes are supported and accessible. The goal of the plan is to promote walking and bicycling through the creation of safe, comfortable, and connected networks, and to encourage alternatives to single-occupancy motor vehicle trips.

Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
The existing transportation infrastructure in the Plan is shown on Figure 3.17-1, and described below.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1088
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063
City of San Carlos
270 DraŌ EIR
March 2026
¨—œů™Ÿ¤—¢
Stop Signs
F Street Underpass
SamTrans Bus Routes
Bus Stops
Pedestrian Route
Class II Bike lane
Class III Bike lane
II
III
Project Boundary
Legend
0 200 400 800 Feet
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FIGURE 3.17-1

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1089
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 271 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Regional Access
Regional vehicular access to the Plan area is provided by U.S. 101 and CA-82 (El Camino Real). U.S. 101 serves San Francisco and the Peninsula/South Bay. Access to and from U.S. 101 in both the northbound and southbound directions is provided via the on-/off-ramps just outside the Plan area east of Industrial Rd. and Holly Street. There are also a pair of southbound-only on- and off-ramps accessed via Harbor Boulevard. El Camino Real serves the Peninsula/South Bay and runs from San Jose to Daly City. The Caltrain railroad tracks, which run on an elevated berm through San Carlos, separate CA-82 from the study area. Access to and from El Camino Real in both the northbound and southbound directions is provided via signalized intersections at Harbor Boulevard and Holly Street.

Local Access
The Plan area is served by the following local roadways:
• Industrial Road is a local north/south arterial road consisting of two travel lanes in each direction with bi-directional, curbside Class II bike lanes and a turn lane median for half of the roadway.
• Old County Road is a local north/south arterial road consisting of travel lane in each direction with storage turn lanes at intersections. A short section of the roadway has a striped Class II bike lane, and the rest of the corridor has Class III bike sharrows. • Holly Street is a local east/west arterial road consisting of two travel lanes in each direction that widens near Industrial Road and the U.S. 101 on-/off-ramps. • Harbor Boulevard is a local east/west arterial road consisting of two travel lanes in each direction with no turn lanes, medians, or bike lanes. The north terminus of the roadway is the on-/off-ramps for U.S. 101.
• Taylor Way is a local road consisting of one travel lane in each direction with no marked centerline or bike lanes.
• Quarry Road is a local road consisting of one travel lane in each direction with no marked centerline or bike lanes.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Plan area has pedestrian facilities that include sidewalks, pathways, curb ramps, crosswalks, curb extensions.

Bicycle facilities in the EIR Study Area include Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes. There are continuous bike lanes along Industrial Road, as well as some segments Old County Road. Bicycle routes are also designated along segments of Old County Road.

Transit Service
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides fixed route bus service in San Carlos and throughout San Mateo County. There are no bus stops in the Plan area. Nearby, on El Camino Real to the west of the site, several bus stops provide convenient local transportation options.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1090
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 272 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Caltrain is the commuter rail line serving the San Francisco Peninsula, connecting San Carlos with San Francisco to the north and San Jose and Gilroy to the south. On weekdays, there are 31 trains servicing the San Carlos Station in the northbound and southbound directions. On weekends, there are 16 trains that stop at the station in each direction. The San Carlos Caltrain Station is located on El Camino Real near the intersection with San Carlos Avenue. Portions of the Plan are also within

0.5 miles of the Belmont Caltrain station.

3.17.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on transportation, would the project:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities? 2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 4) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities? Roadways
As described in Section 2.0 Project Description, a new street segment from Quarry Road to Bragato Road would be implemented as part of the Plan. In addition, the Plan would include other roadway improvements such as a new signalized intersection on Industrial Road at Quarry Road and Taylor Way. In addition, the traffic calming measures would be implemented at intersections as shown on Figure 2.4-5. The Plan also includes intersection modifications, as summarized in Table 3.17-2 in Section 3.17.3 Non-CEQA Effects.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Plan would be consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. 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 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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1091
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 273 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Road and fosters greater access with the natural features. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities.

Transit Facilities
Portions of the Plan are located within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop (San Carlos and Belmont Caltrain stations) and the Plan 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, as describe above. These improvements would encourage connections to nearby rail and bus transit.

Implementation of the Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Per the City’s VMT Policy (Resolution No. 2024-118) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), projects within TPAs are considered to have less-than-significant transportation impacts and no further transportation analysis is required. The Plan is located in a TPA and therefore, future development projects would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Further, as described in Section 2.3.7 of this EIR, all new development in the Plan, with previously noted exceptions for 100% affordable housing, small housing projects, and small non-residential projects, would be subject to TDM requirements. The Plan also includes parking maximums and no parking minimums as a strategy to reduce auto usage. Consistent with C/CAG’s TDM Policy, it is a Plan requirement that all new development, with noted exceptions, would achieve a 25 percent vehicle trip reduction. (Less than Significant Impact)
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The Plan is a long-range planning document that would guide future development within the Plan but would not introduce any physical features that would create an obvious safety hazard. As previously discussed, the Plan includes a new street segment from Quarry Road to Bragato Road. In addition, the Plan would include other roadway improvements such as a new signalized intersection on Industrial Road at Quarry Road and Taylor Way. Any such future improvements would be designed and constructed to local, regional, and federal standards, and as such, would not be expected to introduce any hazardous design features. Projects that would include the development of new streets, circulation improvements and access points would be reviewed for compliance with safety guidelines and standards as part of the development review process, including General Plan Policy CSH-3.5, CSH-4.2, and CSH-4.3. Safety considerations include maintenance of a substantially

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1092
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 274 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
clear line of sight at driveways between the driver of a vehicle waiting to enter the through street and the driver of an approaching vehicle.

Based on the above analysis, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Less than Significant Impact)
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan (including the proposed Plan) would not be expected to result in inadequate emergency access. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with City and County standards and requirements and would undergo review by public safety officials as part of the approval process.

The Plan proposes a new road connecting Quarry Road to Bragato Road that would enhance emergency access within the Plan area.
(Less than Significant Impact)
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant transportation impact?
Consistency with Circulation System Programs, Plans, Ordinances, or Policies The geographic area for consistency with local programs, plans, ordinances, or policies is citywide.

Future cumulative projects would be required to evaluate regional and local traffic impacts pursuant to General Plan Policy CSH-3.9 to ensure that acceptable levels of service are maintained.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that with adherence to General Plan policies, future development would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

VMT
The Plan is located in a TPA and therefore, future development projects implementing the Plan would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Therefore, the buildout of the Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact.

Design Hazards, Incompatible Uses, and Emergency Access The geographic area for cumulative design hazards, incompatible uses, and emergency access is the general vicinity near the Plan. Future cumulative development would be subject to the City’s development review process to ensure design standards are met, that there are no design hazards, or incompatible uses, and that there is adequate emergency access. Thus, cumulative projects

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1093
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 275 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
would not result in a significant cumulative impact due to design hazards, incompatible uses, or emergency access.

As discussed above, implementation of the Plan would result in less than significant cumulative transportation impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

3.17.3 Non-CEQA Effects
While the evaluation of project CEQA impacts on the transportation system is based on VMT, in accordance with City practice and General Plan Policy CSH-3.9, the following discussion is included for informational purposes to analyze non-CEQA transportation issues including vehicle delay resulting from planned growth on roads serving the Plan area.

Trip Generation
The magnitude of traffic produced by new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the volume of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours.

Trip generation considers net new uses and removes existing uses projected for removal or change, as those trips would have been captured in existing traffic data collection. The trip generation also includes the default 25 percent TDM reduction, with the noted exceptions for 100% affordable housing and small residential and non-residential trips. 116 Trip generation for the various uses
assumed for build out under the Plan are summarized in Table 3.17-1 below. 116 This trip reduction level aligns with C/CAG’s requirements for transit-oriented development (TOD) projects regardless of size or land use type. Since the Plan area is fully inside a transit priority area per C/CAG guidance, the 25 percent trip reduction was selected and applied.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1094
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 276 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.17-1: Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Category1
Daily Trips
AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing (to be removed)
Light Industrial 1,476 197 27 224 28 169 197
General Office 488 60 8 68 11 54 65
Animal
Hospital/Veterinarian
Clinic
215 24 12 36 14 21 35
Warehouse 103 8 2 10 3 8 11
A. Total Trips to be
Removed (2,282) (289) (49) (338) (56) (252) (308)
Plan Buildout1
R&D 32,841 2,503 550 3,053 465 2,440 2,905
Light Industrial 3,409 456 62 518 64 391 455
General Office 1,951 241 33 274 44 215 259
Retail 5,402 86 53 139 203 212 415
Multi-Family Residential 8,581 161 538 699 450 287 737
Warehouse 68 5 2 7 2 5 7
Manufacturing 2,337 254 80 334 113 248 361
Gross Trips 54,589 3,706 1,318 5,024 1,341 3,798 5,139
TDM Reduction (25%) (13,647) 927 339 1,257 335 950 1,285 B. Total Plan Trips 40,942 2,779 988 3,767 1,006 2,848 3,854 C. Net Trips2 38,660 2,490 939 3,429 950 2,596 3,546
1 For purposes of trip generation, Plan buildout does not include the 52,000 square feet assumed for the PG&E parcel.
2 Net trips are calculated by subtracting trips generated by existing conditions (A) generated from trips generated under Plan build out conditions (B).

As shown in Table 3.17-1, build out of the Plan would result in an overall net increase of 38,660 daily trips.

Intersection Analysis
Existing with Plan
Under the Existing with Plan scenario, the Old County Road and Holly Street intersection would continue to exceed General Plan thresholds. In addition, the following intersections would not meet performance standards with the addition of Plan trips:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1095
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 277 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard
• Old County Road/Quarry Road
• Old County Road/Taylor Way
Cumulative with Plan
Under the Cumulative with Plan scenario, the Old County Road and Holly Street intersection would continue to exceed General Plan thresholds. In addition, the following intersections would not meet performance standards under the Cumulative with Plan scenario:
• Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard
• U.S. 101 Ramps/Holly Street
• Industrial Road/Holly Street
• Industrial Road/Quarry Street
• Industrial Road/Taylor Street
• Industrial Road/PAMF Driveway
• Old County Road/Quarry Road
• Old County Road/Taylor Way
The Plan does not make any recommendations for physical improvements that would increase vehicle capacity. The Plan includes other interventions, such as repurposing or reconfiguring existing lanes, adding turn pockets at intersections, modifying traffic signal timing, and adding new traffic control devices, as summarized in Table 3.17-2 below. Based on preliminary evaluation, it is not expected that any of the improvements would require acquisition of additional right-of-way. As designs are developed, each roadway improvement would undergo project-level environmental review, as appropriate.

Table 3.17-2: Proposed Intersection Configuration Modifications Intersection Intersection Modifications
Industrial Road/Harbor
Boulevard
• Westbound approach becomes left, left/through, and through/right • Eastbound and Westbound change to split phasing
• Northbound approach becomes left, left, and through/right • Northbound lefts change to protected only phasing
• Industrial Road will have two southbound receiving lanes for at least ½ block and transition to a standard 3-lane section with twoway left turn lane where future parcel development guides appropriate location
Old County Road/Harbor
Boulevard
• Southbound approach becomes left, through/right
• Northbound approach changes to protect/permitted phasing (southbound remains permitted)
• Westbound approach becomes left, left/through, through/right • Eastbound/westbound split phasing to remain

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1096
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 278 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Intersection Intersection Modifications
• Old County Road will have two southbound receiving lanes and carry to Quarry Road
U.S. 101 Ramps/Holly Street No Changes
Industrial Road/Holly Street • Northbound and southbound become a single through lane with left turn pockets
• Other changes per U.S. 101/Holly Street
• Northbound right turn changes reflect U.S. 101/Holly Street. project with new pedestrian crossings
• All dedicated right turn lanes run with overlap phases as applicable • Eastbound approach becomes left, through, through, and through/right Eastbound left turns becomes protected phasing Old County Road/Holly Street • Westbound adds a short right turn pocket as ROW permits • Northbound adds a right turn pocket
• All dedicated right turn lanes run with overlap phases as applicable Industrial Road/Quarry Road • Northbound and southbound become a single through lane with left turn pockets
• Signal remains two-phase, permitted lefts except southbound left protected in AM only (flashing yellow arrow otherwise)
Industrial Road/Taylor Way • New signalized intersection • Northbound and southbound become a single through lane with left turn pockets
• Eastbound lane configuration remains as existing
• Two-phase, concurrent permitted phasing
Industrial Road/PAMF Driveway • Westbound lane configuration remains as existing: requiring two southbound receiving lanes on Industrial transition to southbound approach configuration at Holly Street
• Eastbound and westbound split phasing
• Permitted lefts, except southbound left protected-permitted in AM only (flashing yellow arrow otherwise)
Old County Road/Quarry Road • Remains unsignalized (should be monitored throughout Plan buildout for potential signalization)
• Southbound left turn pocket, carried from 2nd southbound receiving lane at Harbor Road intersection.

Old County Road/Taylor Way No Changes
Source: Nelson\Nygard. Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) – Transportation Analysis (FINAL). December 2024.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1097
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 279 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
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.

Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a TCR, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

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.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1098
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 280 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 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 Sections 5097 and 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 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.

Regional and 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 tribal 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-12.5 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.

Existing Conditions
On July 2, 2024, the City sent letters to tribes listed by the NAHC as having a potential affiliation to the Plan area. The City did not receive any requests from the tribes to consult pursuant to SB 18 or AB 52.

As discussed in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, no archaeological resources were identified within the Plan or immediate vicinity. The Sacred Lands File results were also negative. Therefore, there are no known tribal cultural resources present within the Plan area. However, it is always possible that intact prehistoric 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.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1099
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 281 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.18.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on tribal cultural resources, would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Project Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
As described in Section 3.18.1.1, a TCR is defined under AB 52 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources, or if the City of San Carlos, acting as the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR. There are no known TCRs within the Plan area.

Pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52, the City of San Carlos sent letters to tribes listed by the NAHC as having a potential affiliation to the Plan area. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista responded to the NOP. The tribe recommended that a Sacred Lands File and CHRIS record search be completed for the Plan area. As discussed in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, no archaeological resources were identified within the Plan area or immediate vicinity as part of the CHRIS records search and the Sacred Lands File results were also negative. The City did not receive any requests from the tribes to consult pursuant to SB 18 or AB 52.

Compliance with the General Plan policies listed in Section 3.18.1.1, as well as existing federal and state law, would protect unrecorded TCRs in the Plan area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1100
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 282 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. (Less than Significant Impact) b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
As discussed under checklist question a), no TCRs are identified within the Plan area and future development would comply with existing regulations and the General Plan policies to protect TCRs that may be discovered during future construction activities. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant tribal cultural resources impact?
The geographic area for cumulative TCR impacts is the Plan area and the adjacent areas, as it is assumed development in the area would affect similar resources. Future development projects that would occur during the 20-year timeframe for buildout of the Plan (inside or outside the Plan boundary) would comply with all applicable regulations, including AB 52 and General Plan polices LU-12.1 and LU-12.5 and to protect unrecorded TCRs. For these reasons, cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative TCR impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1101
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 283 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
The following discussion is based, in part, on Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) completed by the California Water Service Mid-Peninsula District (Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District) and MidPeninsula Water District (MPWD) dated January 2025 and February 2025, respectively; and a Proposed Infrastructure Narrative completed by BKF dated September 2024. These reports are included as Appendices H, I, J, respectively.

3.19.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20-year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events. The City of San Carlos is in contract with the Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District and the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD), both are public agencies. Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District utilizes San Carlos’ water infrastructure to distribute water. The MPWD, on the other hand, utilizes its own infrastructure. Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District adopted its most recent UWMP in June 2021; MPWD adopted its most recent UWMP in September 2021. The large majority of the Plan area is served by MPWD, while a smaller area along Old County Road is served by Cal Water, as shown on Figure 3.19-1.

Bay Delta Plan Amendment
The reliability of water supplies for Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District and MPWD is impacted if, and when, the Bay Delta Plan Amendment is enacted, because the sole source of their water supplies is from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)’s Regional Water System (RWS). In December 2018, the SWRCB adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, known as the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and increasing salmonid populations. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 30 to 50 percent of “unimpaired flow” for three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) from February through June during normal years and drought conditions.

If the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, the SFPUC would be able to meet projected water demands for their retail customers in normal years but would experience supply shortages in single dry years and multiple dry years. This impacts the water supplies of both Cal Water Mid10.b June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1102
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 284 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Peninsula District and MPWD, as documented in their current UWMPs for single dry years and multiple dry years. The SFPUC has initiated an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to meet its retail and wholesale customer needs and limit rationing to a maximum of 20 percent system wide.

There is much uncertainty surrounding implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Since adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, over a dozen lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts, challenging the SWRCB’s adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, including a legal challenge filed by the federal government, at the request of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. This litigation is in the early stages and there have been no dispositive court rulings as of this date. Nevertheless, the Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District and MPWD UWMPs conservatively assume that the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment would be implemented in quantifying future water supplies and reliability.

Assembly Bill 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated (from 1990 levels) by 2000 and thereafter. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation measures.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program.

Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi-family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle.

Senate Bill 610
SB 610 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires preparation of a WSA containing detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects that also require a General Plan Amendment. This WSA must be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. Under SB 610, WSAs must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA. Pursuant to the California Water Code (Section 10912[a]), projects that require a WSA include any of the following:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1103
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 285 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects identified in this list; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. CalRecycle released an analysis titled “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals” in August 2020 (revised November 2020), which recommended maintaining the disposal reduction targets set forth in SB 1383.117 California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code is updated every three years.118 CALGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent;
• Recycling and/or salvaging 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris; and
• Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupants. 117 CalRecycle. “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals (DRRR-2020-1693).” Accessed August 19, 2024. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693. 118 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed July 25, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1104
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 286 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Local
Mid-Peninsula Water District Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance MPWD, which serves the large majority of the Plan area, adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) Ordinance (No. 115) in 2015. MPWD requires completion of a water efficient landscape application for any new construction with 500 square feet or more of landscape, or rehabilitated landscape of 1,000 square feet or more that requires a building permit, plan check, or design review. In coordination with the City, MPWD reviews landscape plans to verify compliance with the code requirements.

San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating utilities and service system impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
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-5.3 Promote the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences and by commercial and industrial consumers.

EM-5.4 Encourage the use of drought-tolerant plants and efficient watering techniques for all City landscaping.

EM-5.5 Recycled water distribution system (purple pipe) should be used for landscaping and other non-potable water uses for residential, commercial and industrial customers, where technically and financially feasible.

EM-5.7 Encourage site designs that manage the quantity and quality of storm water run-off.

EM-5.9 Sewer service may be extended outside the city limit only as required to protect public health due to failing septic systems in accordance with the following policies:
• Extension of sewer service would be denied if there is insufficient capacity in the wastewater collection system.
• No change to the land use would occur.
• The extension of sewer service could not be used to enable further subdivision. • The property owner would be required to annex as such time as a complete consolidation of properties could be annexed.
• The property owner would be required to complete all improvements necessary to meet City building and engineering standards.
• Applicant to assure payment of all sewer connection, plan checking and inspection fees.

EM-12.3 Encourage the public and private sectors to utilize reusable, returnable, recyclable, environmentally-friendly products and repairable goods through incentives, educational displays and activities, as well as City purchasing policies and practices.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1105
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 287 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
ESPS-2.1 Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.

ESPS-2.2 Maintain and prioritize restoration of a healthy riparian corridor in City-maintained flood control channels such as Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage, and heavy undergrowth; and increase community access to channels with improved stormwater and flood management strategies.

ESPS-2.3 Maintain a strong and enforceable Stream Development and Maintenance Ordinance for all city creeks and their tributaries.

ESPS-2.4 Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.

ESPS-2.7 Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on approaches to flooding and creek maintenance.

ESPS-2.10 Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.

ESPS-3.12 Ensure adequate water supply is available.

CSS-2.1 Improve and maintain City storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.

CSS-2.2 Maintain a healthy riparian corridor in City-maintained flood control channels to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage and heavy undergrowth.

CSS-2.4 Minimize impervious surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff and increase flood protection.

CSS-2.12 Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff, so as to prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.

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 water as follows:
• Chapter 8.04, Solid Waste, also known as the solid waste ordinance, contains provisions for solid waste collection and disposal. The chapter requires all residential, commercial, or industrial properties in the City to contract with a City franchisee for the removal and disposal of solid waste generated by the property. The franchisee is authorized to charge all customers a fee for the collection and transport of the solid waste. • Chapter 8.05, Recycling And Diversion Of Construction And Demolition Debris, requires that each local jurisdiction in the State divert fifty percent of solid waste from landfill by December 31, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. This chapter establishes diversion rates for construction and demolition debris to meet the AB 939 mandates and reduce the amount of solid waste that is landfilled. In general, projects are required to divert at least 60 percent of all generated tonnage. Every project applicant must submit a waste management plan (WMP) to the Department of Planning and Building as part of the building permit process. The WMP shall include: 1) the estimated volume or

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1106
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 288 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
weight of project construction and demolition debris, by materials type; 2) the maximum volume and weight of these materials that can feasibly be diverted via reuse or recycling; 3) the vendor or facility that will be used to collect or receive the material; and 4) the estimated volume or weight of construction and demolition debris that will be landfilled. • Chapter 8.24, Recycling and Collection of other Wastes, regulates the location, height, size and design features of recycling and trash enclosures and containers. These regulations are necessary in order to lengthen the life span of the landfill and decrease the cost of hauling to the landfill in addition to encourage the reuse of recyclable materials. • Chapter 8.25, Mandatory Commercial and Multifamily Residential Recycling, establishes requirements for the collection, recycling, and processing of recyclable and organic materials generated from commercial facilities, multi-family dwellings, and special events.

These requirements are intended to assist the City in meeting the recycling and landfill diversion goals and reduce GHG emissions. Multi-family generators must participate in the programs covered by this chapter and segregate recyclable materials from garbage and deposit them in designated containers provided by the solid waste collector. These requirements apply to all commercial or multi-family solid waste customers that generate two cubic yards or more of garbage per week.
• Chapter 8.60, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, includes the State regulations and mandatory requirements for organic waste recycling and reduction. • 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.
• Chapter 13.04, Sewer Connections, requires connection permits for all projects that connect to any City sewer and sewer capacity charges are imposed on all new development and redevelopment projects to cover costs for maintaining the City’s sewer system infrastructure. The sewer capacity charge is based on the volume of estimated wastewater discharge from each new or expanded connection.
• Chapter 13.05, Sewer Lateral Inspection, Repair, and/or Replacement, establishes requirements for property owners to inspect, maintain, repair, and/or replace sewer laterals, sewer relief valves, and sewer backwater valves on each property that is connected to the City’s sewer system.
• Chapter 13.08, Sewer Use, establishes standards and conditions, as well as charges and fees, for the use of the sewer system. The chapter includes protection of the sewer system from damage; prohibitions on discharges; control of fats, oils, and grease; and regulation of encroachments into easements; and wastewater effluent limitations. • Chapter 13.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, regulates non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater; and reduces pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. • Chapter 13.16, Storm Drainage Fees, allows for the collection of storm drainage fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 5471 et seq. Fees collected from this chapter

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1107
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 289 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
shall be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of storm drainage facilities or programs.
• Chapter 15.04.070, Title 24, Part 5, California Plumbing Code with appendices, adopts the latest plumbing code for new construction.
• Chapter 15.04.125, Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), establishes CALGreen’s energy and water efficiency mandatory measures for new residential construction.
• Section 17.16.270, Storm Drainage Facilities, requires the subdivider to dedicate rights-ofway for storm drainage purposes that conform to the boundary lines of any natural watercourse, channel, stream, or creek that traverses the subdivision. • Chapter 18.18.080, Water Efficient Landscaping, establishes water-efficient landscape and irrigation guidelines to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and minimize runoff with the use of automatic control systems. The SCMC requires the estimated total water use of a proposed landscaping not to exceed the maximum applied water allowance.

San Carlos Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Chapter 8.05 of the San Carlos Municipal Code requires projects that qualify for coverage under CALGreen that generate waste comprised of mixed debris, including both structural debris (e.g., wood, metal, wallboard) and inert materials (dirt, asphalt, brick, and/or cinderblock), to divert at least 60 percent of all generated tonnage. All project applicants are required to submit a properly completed WMP to the City Department of Planning and Building’s WMP Compliance Official, as a portion of the building or demolition permit process.

San Carlos Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance Chapter 8.60 of the San Carlos Municipal Code implements the provisions of AB 1826, which requires businesses and multi-family complexes (with five or more units) that generate specified amounts of organic waste (compost) to arrange for organics collection services. The ordinance contains requirements for single-family organic waste generators, multifamily residential dwellings, and Tier One and Tier Two commercial businesses. Under the ordinance, a Tier One commercial edible food generator is defined as a commercial edible food generator that is either a supermarket, a grocery store with a total facility size equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet, a food service provider, a food distributor, or a wholesale food vendor. A Tier Two commercial edible food generator is defined as either a restaurant with 250 or more seats (or a total facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet, a hotel with an on-site food facility 200 or more rooms, a health facility with an on-site food facility and 100 or more beds, a large venue, a large event, a State agency with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet, or a local education agency facility with an on-site food facility.

City of San Carlos Design Guidelines
Section 7 of the City’s Design Guidelines includes standards for the City’s sewer collection system.

These sewer guidelines apply to the construction, repair, and relocation of sanitary sewer facilities in the City, including mains, laterals, services, and all related appurtenances. Section 7 provides

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1108
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 290 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
guidelines for the design, construction, and abandonment of sewer lines, including design criteria, materials, and installation. More stringent requirements based on specific project conditions may be imposed at the discretion of the Department of Public Works and Engineering Division.

City of San Carlos Sewer Collection System Master Plan
The City prepared a Sewer Collection System Master Plan in 2013. The report presents a comprehensive assessment of the City’s sewer collection system in order to identify system capital improvement needs. The Master Plan was also prepared to meet the requirements of the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, which require every collection system agency in California prepare a Sewer System Management Plan. The plan includes a system evaluation and capacity assurance plan and a plan for rehabilitation and replacement of sewers based on their condition.

City of San Carlos Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
The San Carlos Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) was originally prepared in July 2014 and last updated April 30, 2021. The SSMP includes eleven elements; including but not limited to goals; operation and maintenance program; design and performance provisions; overflow emergency response plan; fats, oils and grease control program; system evaluation and capacity assurance plan; and monitoring measurement and program modifications among others.

City of San Carlos Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan Adopted in 2017, the Citywide SDMP identified causes of flooding within the storm drain system and developed alternatives for improvements that address the flooding.

The City has experienced periodic flooding over the years and these flooding events are generally due to a combination of issues, including storm drain inlet blockages from leaves and debris, stormwater volumes that are greater than the capacity of the City storm drain system, and backwater and overtopping from creeks.

The Storm Drain Master Plan was created to develop alternative improvement projects that would improve the capacity of the system. These alternatives were compared and ranked in order to develop a prioritized CIP that addresses the capacity issues and seeks to prioritize the more severe flooding problems.

City of San Carlos Storm Drain Standards
The City’s Storm Drain Standards provides guidelines for the design and construction of storm drain projects. The guidelines establish minimum acceptable design criteria. More stringent requirements based on specific project conditions may be imposed at the discretion of Public Works and Utilities Department.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1109
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 291 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
City of San Carlos Green Infrastructure Plan
Adopted in 2019, the Green Infrastructure Plan describes how the City will, over time, transition its existing “gray” (i.e., traditional) infrastructure to “green” infrastructure. Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soil, and other elements to capture, treat, infiltrate and slow urban runoff. GI measures could include stormwater planters, rain gardens, tree wells, pervious pavement, infiltration systems, and green roofs.

Existing Conditions
Water Service
Water service in San Carlos is provided by Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District and MPWD, as shown on Figure 3.19-1, the large majority of the Plan area is served by MPWD.

Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District
Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District purchases water from the SFPUC. The main source of water is the Hetch Hetchy reservoir located in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Cal Water’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) from the SFPUC is 35.68 million gallons per day (MGD) (39,993 acre-feet per year; [AFY]), which is shared among its Bear Gulch, Mid-Peninsula, and South San Francisco Districts.119 Cal Water purchased an average of 29,38 MGD in 2020 and is projected to purchase 30.35 MGD in 2045, which is less than the ISG of 35.68 MGD.i120 Cal Water’s total projected water demand is expected to be 35,869 AFY by 2045.121 The increase in water demand over a 25-year period is minimal, because Cal Water accounts for both active and passive water conservation measures in their future projections. Cal Water predicts that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet demands through 2045 during normal years.122 However, there could be a shortage of water supplies in single dry and multiple dry years, if the Bay Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, leading to a reduction in allocations of water from SFPUC. As stated in the 2020 UWMP, if the Bay Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented, SFPUC would be able to supply 100 percent of the projected RWS demands through 2040 during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. Cal Water’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) includes measures that would be implemented in response to water shortages caused by drought or supply interruptions.

The Cal Water San Carlos system has 383 miles of pipeline, 35 storage tanks, and 54 booster pumps.
123
119 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025. 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1110
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 292 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Mid-Peninsula Water District
MPWD purchases its entire water supply from the SFPUC, whose main source of water is surface water from the Hetch Hetchy Watershed in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The MPWD has a total of 20 pump stations, 11 water tanks, 13 regulating valves, 813 hydrants and 94 miles of water mains.124 MPWD mainly serves the City of Belmont and a small portion of the City of San Carlos, although MPWD serves the large majority of the Plan area as shown on Figure 3.19-1.

MPWD’s total ISG is 3.891 MGD.125 With implementation of the Bay Delta Plan Amendment, MPWD predicts a water supply shortage in single- and multiple-dry year scenarios. As stated in the 2020 UWMP, if the Bay Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented, SFPUC would be able to supply 100 percent of the projected RWS demands through 2045 during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. Responses to water shortages are addressed in MPWD’s WSCP, which provides direction on specific actions to be taken by staff and customers in response to increasingly severe water supply shortage conditions. Within the plan, six water shortage levels are identified along with the shortage response actions.

Sanitary Sewer/Wastewater Treatment
The City of San Carlos owns and operates a sanitary sewer collection system consisting of approximately 104 miles of sewer pipelines and 6 sewer lift stations.126 The majority of the system is a gravity system that consists mainly of pipe diameters that range from five inches to 36 inches, with the majority of the system being six-inch pipes (70 percent). Most of the system was constructed in the 1940s and 1950s with the oldest portions of the system dating back to the 1920s.

The primary pipe material is vitrified clay pipe, with plastic pipe (HDPE or PVC) used in newer sewer construction and rehabilitation. The system also includes approximately 11,000 private sewer laterals that are maintained by the property owners. This system is maintained by the City’s Public Works Department, and the wastewater flows are conveyed to the Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located adjacent to the bay in Redwood Shores.

The City’s sewer system is subject to infiltration and inflow with groundwater and stormwater entering the collection system during storm events and resulting in high peak flows during wet weather events. As a result, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) have occurred in the past. In 2010, the City entered into a Consent Decree with the San Franciso Baykeeper, which requires the City to implement a number of measures targeted at reducing SSOs.

The City plans to upgrade the aging infrastructure as outlined in the Sewer System Management Plan through projects identified in their Capital Improvement Program.127 124 Ibid. 125 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025. 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1111

EL CAMINO REAL
MCCUE

SAN CARLOS

SPRINGFIELD

RIVERTON
SYLVAN

INVERNESS

NORTHWOOD
HARBOR
OAK
HOLLY
HULL

BAYSHORE

CORMORANT
CEDAR
SIXTH
ELMER
FIR
CHERRY
BUSH

GLENWOOD
5TH

BAYPORT
E

FAIRFIELD
SPRING

SHOREWAY
MAG
NOLIA
F
ACACIA

MONTGOMERY
VINE
KING
WALNUT

CHESTNUT

MANZANITA

TWIN DOLPHIN
ELM
LAUREL
Legend
Northeast Area Specific Plan
MPWD Service Area
Cal Water Portion
San Carlos City Boundary
Cal Water Service Area
Project Site
GLENN

BRAGATO
QUARRY

INDUSTRIAL
TAYLOR

OLD COUNTY
WATER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES FIGURE 3.19-1
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063
City of San Carlos
293 DraŌ EIR
March 2026

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1112
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 294 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
All collected wastewater is conveyed to the San Carlos Pump Station, which is owned and operated by SVCW. It is then pumped to the SVCW WWTP located in the City of Redwood City. The existing volume of wastewater collected by the City and treated at the SVCW facility is approximately 2.85 MGD.128 The design capacity for the SVCW WWTP is 29 MGD (dry weather flow), and the total of all wastewater flows to the SVCW in 2020 was 12.6 MGD.129 SVCW’s projections estimate that the total wastewater flow in 2040 will be 17.9 MGD.130 This is still well below its permitted capacity.

Storm Drainage
The City of San Carlos maintains all stormwater facilities within the city. Stormwater runoff in the City of San Carlos is conveyed to San Francisco Bay via a network of 56 miles of storm drains, creeks and drainage channels, and three pump stations.131 The drainage pipes range in size between fourinch to 72-inch diameter. San Carlos is responsible for maintenance of culverts under roadways and creek segments with easements. Inaccessible creek areas and upstream reaches in the hills are generally on private property and respective property owners are responsible for maintenance. The City addresses flooding constraints through their Capital Improvement Program, which prioritizes improvement projects for the drainage system.

The City’s drainage system is divided into five watersheds: Cordilleras Creek, Brittan Creek, Pulgas Creek, Lower Pulgas Creek and Belmont Creek. The Plan area is located within the Belmont Creek watershed, with Belmont Creek forming the northern boundary of the Plan area.

Solid Waste
Recology San Mateo County (Recology) provides recycling, compost, and garbage collection in San Carlos and San Mateo County. All waste is transported to the Shoreway Environmental Center in the City of San Carlos, which consists of a transfer station, a materials recovery facility in which recyclable materials are retrieved from the waste stream and shipped to recyclers, and a public recycling facility. The facility also accepts construction and demolition debris. The Shoreway Environmental Center has a maximum permitted throughput of 3,000 tons per day.132 South Bay Recycling (SBR) is the contractor hired by RethinkWaste to operate the Shoreway Environmental Center. SBR is responsible for the marketing and selling of recyclable materials to domestic and overseas markets, transporting loads of organic waste to Blossom Valley Organics in Vernalis and Newby Island in San Jose, transporting garbage to the Ox Mountain Landfill in Half Moon Bay, and delivering construction and demolition debris to Zanker Recycling in San Jose.

The majority of the solid waste generated in San Carlos is transported to Ox Mountain Landfill. The landfill has a daily maximum throughput of 3,598 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 22 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid. 131 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025. 132 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1113
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 295 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
million cubic yards, and it is expected to reach capacity in 2034.133 The landfill is estimated to have a residual disposal capacity of 1,790 tons per day.134
For 2022, the target disposal rates for San Carlos were 7.5 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and

14.4 ppd per employee. The actual disposal rates in 2022were 6.8 ppd per resident and 10.7 ppd per employee, which are below target rates and thus are consistent with AB 939.135 Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the project site by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and PG&E, respectively. PCE is San Mateo County’s Community Choice Aggregate (CCA), a community-controlled, not-for-profit joint powers agency. PCE procures renewable sources of electricity throughout San Mateo County, while PG&E manages and maintains the electrical infrastructure used to supply consumers with electricity.

3.19.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on utilities and service systems, would the project:
1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1114
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 296 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water
Within the MPWD service area, it is estimated that the total net new demand from the Plan would be 231 million gallons (MG) annually, or 710 AFY, by 2045. It is estimated that the total net new demand from the Plan within Cal Water’s service area would be 41 AFY by 2045. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would not result in the need to construct additional water supply or distribution systems, since most of the new development would be infill projects that are replacing existing buildings with existing water demand and water distribution systems. Further, the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR determined that the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP)136 has the capability of supplying treated water to all of its wholesale and retail customers under existing and future conditions and no new water treatment facilities are required. Consistent with General Plan Action ESPS-3.12, new development would need to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine whether sufficient flow and pressure are available in the water distribution system to meet the demands of the development.

Potential environmental impacts could result from construction and operation of these improvements; however, such impacts would be project-specific and cannot be identified and evaluated at the Specific Plan stage. Any new or expanded local water distribution facilities would reviewed in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated.

Compliance with the City’s requirements for new construction and implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that future development under the Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to the need for new and/or expanded water facilities.

Wastewater
Wastewater demand for the Plan is estimated to be approximately 606,993 gallons per day (gpd), or

0.61 MGD. As discussed in Section 3.19.1.2 Existing Conditions, SVCW’s WWTP estimated wastewater flow in 2040 is well below its permitted capacity. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would not require the construction or expansion of the SVCW’s WWTP.
136 The HTWTP is owned and operated by SFPUC. The HTWTP was recently upgraded and features five new filters, three new ozone generators, and a new seismically resistant 11.5-million-gallon treated water reservoir. The facility now has the capacity to provide 140 MGD for 60 days within 24 hours of a major earthquake.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1115
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 297 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
The City’s SSMP identified the following sewer lines within the Plan that need repairs or replacement:
• A portion of sewer main along Industrial Road, 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 In accordance with the SSMP, future development projects that discharge to undersized sanitary sewer mains would be required to upsize those mains, accordingly. Potential environmental impacts could result from construction and operation of these improvements; however, such impacts would be project-specific. Any new or expanded wastewater conveyance facilities would be undertaken by the City and undergo environmental review in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated.

Compliance with the City’s requirements for new construction and implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that future development under the Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to the need for new and/or expanded wastewater facilities.

Storm Drain System
Under existing conditions, current land uses in the Plan are mostly light industrial, research and development, and warehousing type uses. Implementation of the Plan would result in new multifamily residential uses and non-residential uses. As discussed in Section 2.3.5 of this EIR, the Plan would require 15 percent open space dedication for all new development on properties 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. The Plan would include green stormwater infrastructure improvements along all roadways. Therefore, buildout under the Plan would reduce impervious surfaces.

Future redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP, which requires implementation of stormwater treatment measures that would collect and treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious areas prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system. This would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from future development in the Plan. The 2045 General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with Provision C.3 of the MRP would serve to minimize any potential impacts to the City’s storm drain system.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the proposed project) would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1116
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 298 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Future development under the Plan would coordinate with the appropriate electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication providers, on providing service to the site. Existing utility lines would be utilized by development under the Plan for electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Connecting to the energy and communications grid would require trenching on the site, which would not require substantial excavation and would result in minimal impacts. Future development projects would be required to detail the exact locations for all utility connections and utility plans would be subject to review by the City.

As documented above, the Plan would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) b) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As discussed in Section 3.19.1.2 Existing Conditions, water service in the Plan is provided by both Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District and MPWD, with the large majority of the Plan area served by MPWD as shown on Figure 3.19-1. The Plan consists of approximately 4,508,000 gross square feet of new non-residential development and 1,890,000 gross sq ft of new residential development (approximately 1,890 multi-family residential dwelling units, assuming 1,000 square feet average).

The water service breakdown for buildout under the Plan is summarized in Table 3.19-1 below.

Table 3.19-1: Water Service Area for Northeast Area Specific Plan Buildout Cal Water Mid-Peninsula
District
Mid-Peninsula Water
District
Total
Non-Residential (square
feet)
26,229 4,481,818 4,508,047
Residential (dwelling
units)
361 1,529 1,890
Pursuant to SB 610, a WSA was prepared by each of the respective water suppliers and summarized below.

Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District
The portion of the Plan area within Cal Water’s existing service area has historically been used for mixed commercial and retail use. Historical water use has ranged between 2.5 AFY and 3.5 AFY between 2019 and 2023, and averaged 2.8 AFY. It is estimated that the total net new demand from the Plan within Cal Water’s service area would be 41 AFY by 2045, as shown in Table 3.19-2.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1117
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 299 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 3.19-2: Projected Water Demand within Cal Water’s Service Area (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
0 15 24 32 41
Source: Cal Water Service Mid-Peninsula District. Water Supply Assessment for the City of San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan. January 2025.

Total water demand for the District averaged 13,733 AFY from 2019 through 2023. The 2020 UWMP estimates that water demand within Cal Water’s service area is projected to increase to 15,279 AFY by 2045, an increase of 13 percent over the 2019-2023 average. Total water demand is estimated to incrementally increase to 15,366 AFY by 2045, inclusive of the Plan and other planned developments. The WSA concluded that Cal Water has sufficient water supplies to meet all projected water demand during normal hydrologic years. In the event the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, shortfalls of up to 53 percent are possible in drought periods.

However, if drought conditions should arise, Cal Water will meet its demands through the implementation of its WSCP. In addition, Cal Water, through local and regional efforts, is striving to increase its water supply portfolio. Therefore, the WSA concludes supplies are sufficient to meet projected future demands, inclusive of the Plan. The shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the District’s WSCP.

Mid-Peninsula Water District
Existing water demand for the Plan within MPWD’s service area has ranged from 15 million gallons per year (MGY) to 28 MGY and averaged 20 MGY, or 61.5 AFY. 137 It is estimated that the total net
new demand from the Plan would be 711 AF by 2045, as shown in Table 3.19-3.

Table 3.19-3: Projected Water Demand within MPWD’s Service Area (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
80 250 394 557 711
Source: Mid-Peninsula Water District. Water Supply Assessment for the City of San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan. February 2025.

Water use within the MPWD service area has significantly declined since 2000. The total water use within the MPWD service area averaged 2,731 AF from 2019-2023, which represents 63 percent of MPWD’s ISG of 4,358 AFY. MPWD’s 2020 UWMP projected MPWD water demand to be 3,281 AF by 2045. This demand does not account for the Plan and other known developments since 2020 UWMP development. Taking into account the 2020 UWMP projected demands and additive demands from the development that would be enabled by the Plan and other known developments138 that are outside of the anticipated growth of the 2020 UWMP demand 137 For purposes of this discussion, water demand values have been converted from MG to AF to provide a comparison to the water demand within Cal Water’s service area. 138 Includes Harbor Industrial Area Specific Plan.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1118
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 300 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
projections, total demands for the District are projected to be up to 4,708 AF by 2045, representing 107.4 percent of the MPWD’s total ISG of 4,358 AF.

The WSA concludes that MPWD has sufficient supplies under normal hydrologic years to meet anticipated demands for MPWD and all other known developments through 2035, but anticipates up to a 1.4 percent shortfall in 2040 and a 7.4 percent shortfall in 2045. This estimated shortfall may be lower due to a number of factors, and if such a shortfall is realized, the shortfall can be addressed through implementation of the District’s WSCP. There is a significant level of uncertainty as to how and when the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment would be implemented and how it would affect the supply reliability of the SFPUC RWS. This uncertainty translates to a wide range of potential dry year supply availability scenarios, including large shortfalls. However, MPWD is pursuing the development of additional water supplies to improve reliability. Therefore, MPWD’s WSA finds that the total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year protection will meet the projected water demands associated with the Plan, in addition to MPWD’s existing and planned future uses and other known developments, with implementation of its WSCP during water shortages. MPWD is currently undergoing an updated study of its projected demands through 2050. These updated demand projections will be used as part of the District’s 2025 UWMP, which is anticipated to be completed in summer of 2026.

Summary
As discussed above, both Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District and MPWD are expected to have sufficient water supplies to meet demand under normal conditions with implementation of the Plan. However, both water purveyors project water shortages during single- and multiple-dry year conditions, assuming implementation of the Bay Delta Plan Amendment and SFPUC supply restrictions.

Future development projects would be required to implement the water-efficient requirements specified in the CALGreen and California Plumbing Codes and the WELO requirements for water efficient landscaping. Future development projects within the Plan that meet the size threshold for preparing a WSA, or that require a Water Service Agreement with the District, would be individually assessed for their expected water demands on the system in relation to available water supply at the time.

As discussed in Section 2.4.4.3, new development in the Plan would be required to 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. At the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in a new development project, the water infrastructure associated with such building shall include dual plumbing for potable and recycled water, with separate pipelines composed of appropriate material to accommodate recycled water. If a recycled water source and associated off-site infrastructure becomes available to connect and deliver recycled water for use at the property, the developer shall reasonably promptly connect the project’s plumbing infrastructure to such source

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1119
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 301 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
and associated off-site infrastructure, provided the necessary off-site infrastructure is available at the public street frontage of the property.

Implementation of Cal Water and MPWD’s WSCPs, compliance with WSA requirements, compliance with existing water conservation regulations, and implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions would reduce water demand with respect to water supplies. In addition, Cal Water, MPWD, and SFPUC plan to implement alternative water supply programs by 2045. The Bay Delta Plan Amendment may not be enacted in its current structure, making more water available than anticipated in the most recent UWMPs. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supply available to serve buildout of the Plan. (Less than Significant Impact) c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Future development within the buildout horizon of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in wastewater with a population increase of 3,611 residents and 4,508,000 new square feet of nonresidential land use (or 9,794 new employees) (refer to Section 3.14 Population and Housing).

Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be collected by the City’s sanitary sewer system and conveyed to the SVCW WWTP. The estimated wastewater generation from the Plan is summarized in Table 3.19-4 below.

Table 3.19-4: Projected Wastewater Generation Increase
Category Net Change
(residents or
square feet)
Wastewater Use
Factor1
Increase in
Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Increase in
Wastewater
Generation (MGD)
Residential 3,611 47 gpcd 169,717 0.169
Non-Residential 4,508,000 0.097 gpd/square
feet
437,276 0.437
Total 606,993 0.61
Notes: gpcd = gallons per capita per day
1 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025.

The total increase in wastewater generation is estimated to be approximately 0.61 MGD. The SVCW WWTP has a design capacity of 29 MGD and a projected total wastewater flow of 17.9 MGD in 2040. Therefore, there is a residual projected treatment capacity of 11.1 MGD. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that the increase in wastewater generation from buildout of the General Plan (which accounted for the proposed project) is well within the residual capacity of the SVCW WWTP. In addition, per capita wastewater flow rates are expected to decline with water conservation efforts. Therefore, the SVCW WWTP would be able to accommodate future wastewater flows from the City and other contributors of wastewater flows to the SVCW WWTP. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1120
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 302 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Implementation of the Plan is estimated to generate approximately 64.5 tons of solid waste per day, or 23,543 tons per year, as summarized in Table 3.19-5 below.

Table 3.19-5: Projected Solid Waste Generation
Category Net Change
(residents or jobs)
Solid Waste
Generation Rate
(ppd)1
Increase in Solid
Waste (tons/day)
Increase in Solid
Waste (tons/year)
Residents 3,611 6.8 12.3 4,490
Jobs 9,794 10.7 52.2 19,053
Total 64.5 23,543
1 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 2025.

The Plan’s increase of 64.5 tons per day represents approximately three percent of the current residual daily capacity (1,790 tons per day) at Ox Landfill.

The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the proposed Plan) would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of the landfills that serve the City. Furthermore, 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, implementation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State and local standards, or in excess of the capacity of the landfills, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and the impact is less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
e) Would the project be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As discussed under checklist question d), future development under the Plan would comply with state and local regulations related to solid waste reduction. 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. Further, all new developments are 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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1121
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 303 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Thus, the Plan would comply with federal, state, and local solid waste statutes and regulations. (Less than Significant Impact) Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant utilities and service systems impact?
Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Facilities Water Facilities
The geographic area for cumulative water system impacts is the area serviced by the same water lines as the sites in the Plan, as well as the service areas for the two water retailers serving the Plan.

Cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate that adequate water quantity, quality and distribution could be provided. Potential environmental impacts could result from construction and operation of these improvements; however, such impacts would be project-specific. Any new or expanded local water distribution facilities would be reviewed in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible.

Wastewater
The geographic area for cumulative wastewater system impacts is the area serviced by the same wastewater lines as the sites in the Plan, as well as the service area for the SVCW WWTP. If insufficient capacity exists to serve future cumulative development, individual projects (including under the Plan) would need to determine the remaining capacity and may be required to upsize sewer mains as part of the public improvements for their project, which could extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the project frontage. Any sewer infrastructure improvements required to serve specific development sites would require permits from the City and review in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible. The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the Plan) would not, in combination with other cumulative growth within the SVCW service area, exceed the treatment capacity at the SVCW WWTP, nor result in the need to construct additional water supply or distribution systems, since most of the new development would be infill projects that are replacing existing buildings with existing wastewater demand and wastewater systems. For this reason, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to the wastewater system.

Storm Drainage
The geographic area for cumulative storm drain system impacts are the areas upstream and downstream of the Plan. Future cumulative development (projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface ) would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP, which requires implementation of stormwater treatment measures that would collect and treat

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1122
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 304 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
stormwater runoff from all onsite impervious areas prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system. The 2045 General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with Provision C.3 of the MRP would serve to minimize any potential impacts to the City’s storm drain system. As noted previously, the Plan area is largely developed and buildout under the Plan would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces. Therefore, there is little potential for an increase in rate or volume of surface runoff.

Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to storm drainage facilities.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Future cumulative development would coordinate with the appropriate electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication providers on providing service to the site. Existing utility lines would be utilized by development under the Plan for electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Connecting to the energy and communications grid would require trenching on the site, which would not require substantial excavation and would result in minimal impacts. Future development projects would be required to detail the exact locations for all utility connections and utility plans would be subject to review by the City. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities.

Water Supply
The geographic area for cumulative water supply is the service area of the respective water suppliers (Cal Water and MPWD). The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that cumulative water supply impacts would be less than significant through compliance with federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, including City ordinances and General Plan goals, policies, and actions. All new development projects that meet the SB 610 criteria, such as residential projects with more than 500 dwelling units, would be required to be evaluated in WSAs prepared by the respective water retailer, or demonstrate that their demand had been accounted for in a prior WSA. The City and the water purveyors would review such projects for adequacy of water supply and the water purveyors would update the UWMP every five years to ensure that there are adequate water supplies and contingency plans for future residents and customers. All new development under the proposed Plan would require implementing water efficiency and water conservation measures, as per the CALGreen Building Code and the WELO irrigation requirements. Water supply deficits in dry years would be met by implementing the WSCPs and other water conservation efforts. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to water supply.

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The geographic area for cumulative wastewater treatment impacts is the SVCW WWTP. As discussed under checklist question c), the SVCW WWTP has a residual projected treatment capacity of 11.1 MGD and is expected to meet future growth in its service area. The 2045 General Plan EIR concluded that future development projects would have to pay wastewater capacity charges and property owners are required to pay an annual sewer service charge, which funds continued

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1123
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 305 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment system. Therefore, cumulative development would not exceed wastewater collection or treatment capacities.

Solid Waste
The 2045 General Plan Reset EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan (including the proposed project) would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of the landfills that serve the City. In addition, new development would comply with CALGreen, 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. This would also reduce the volume of solid waste transported to the landfills. Continued compliance with the applicable regulations and an increase in recycling and landfill diversion rates would ensure that solid waste cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

As described above, the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative utilities and service systems impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1124
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 306 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

3.20 Wildfire

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. Referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs), these maps influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires.

FHSZs are divided into areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as state responsibility areas (SRAs), and areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as local responsibility areas (LRAs). Homeowners living in an SRA are responsible for ensuring that their property is in compliance with California’s building and fire codes. Only lands zoned for very high fire hazard are identified within LRAs.

California Fire Code Chapter 47
Chapter 47 of the California Fire Code sets requirements for wildland-urban interface fire areas that increase the ability of buildings to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire, in addition to systematically reducing conflagration losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements.

California Public Resources Code Section 4442 through 4431 The California Public Resources Code includes fire safety regulations that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on construction equipment that uses an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools on forest-covered land, brush-covered land, or grass-covered land; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided onsite for various types of work in fire-prone areas. These regulations include the following:
• Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (Public Resources Code Section 4442);
• Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger period, from April 1 to December 1 (Public Resources Code Section4428); • On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the construction contractor would maintain appropriate fire suppression equipment (Public Resources Code Section 4427); and

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1125
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 307 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
• On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (Public Resources Code Section 4431).

California Code of Regulations Title 14
The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has adopted regulations, known as SRA Fire Safe Regulations, which apply basic wildland fire protection standards for building, construction, and development occurring in a SRA. The future design and construction of structures, subdivisions and developments in SRAs are required to provide for the basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection measures discussed in Title 14.

San Mateo–Santa Cruz Unit Strategic Fire Plan
CAL FIRE developed the San Mateo–Santa Cruz Unit 2023 Strategic Fire Plan, adopted in 2023, which covers an approximately 894-square-mile area and protects 572,160 acres of the SRA in both San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.139 The goal of this plan is to outline resource needs in the area by creating a list of all the initial attack resources in the unit and expanding these resources in atrisk communities. There is also an education section in the plan that encourages teaching the community at formal events and meetings.

San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The San Mateo County MJHMP, updated in 2021 in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000, provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these hazards. The San Carlos Jurisdictional Annex of the MJHMP provides an assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities, and a set of mitigation actions for San Carlos specifically while considering the results from the countywide effort. In the context of an MJHMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, wildfire.140 San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset
Various policies in the City’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating wildfire impacts resulting from planned development within the City including the following:

Policy Description
ESPS-3.1 Promote and improve, as necessary, inter-jurisdictional fire prevention assessment, planning, and projection; and consultation and communication regarding disaster or emergency plans of San Carlos and Mutual Aid with adjacent agencies including but not limited to San Mateo County, Redwood City, Belmont, and CAL FIRE. 139 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. January 2025. 140 Ibid.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1126
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 308 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Policy Description
ESPS-3.3 Ensure adequate Fire Department resources (fire stations, personnel, and equipment) to meet response time standards, keep pace with growth, and provide a high level of service to the community.

ESPS-3.9 Incorporate or require the incorporation of fire safety features in new development and redevelopment.

ESPS-3.10 Require new residential developments to have adequate fire protection and be more wildfire resistant by establishing greenbelt zones for fire-resistant landscaping.

ESPS-3.11 Require new residential development to be designed to reduce wildfire hazard and improve defensibility (e.g., clustering lots, managed greenbelts, water storage, fuel modification zones, and vegetation setbacks).

ESPS-3.14 Provide adequate evacuation routes and access for fire and emergency service vehicles to all San Carlos areas.

ESPS-13.10 Require existing overhead utility lines be placed underground in new development and redevelopment through a phased program of conversion in existing overhead areas.

Existing Conditions
The Plan area is located within an urban area and is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The nearest areas designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFSZ) by the CAL FIRE are the foothill neighborhoods west of Alameda de las Pulgas, which are over one mile west of the Plan.141

3.20.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on wildfire, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 141 City of San Carlos. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR. Figures 4.18-1. January 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1127
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 309 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Project Impacts
As described above in Section 3.20.1.1, the Plan area is located in an urbanized location and is not in or adjacent to a VHFSZ or state responsibility areas. The implementation of the Plan, therefore, would not result in wildfire impacts. (No Impact)
Cumulative Impacts
The implementation of the Plan would not result in wildfire impacts; therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative wildfire impacts. (No Cumulative Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1128
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 310 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 4.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Would the project foster or stimulate significant economic or population growth in the surrounding environment?
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify the likelihood that a proposed project could “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (Section 15126.2[d]). This section of the EIR is intended to evaluate the impacts of such growth in the surrounding environment.

A project can have direct and/or indirect growth-inducement potential. Direct growth inducement results if a project involves construction of new housing that would result in new residents moving to the area. A project can have indirect growth-inducement potential if it establishes substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it involves a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities and indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Similarly, under CEQA, a project could indirectly induce growth if it expands roadway capacity or removes an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on required public services or utilities (e.g., adding a sewage treatment plant that has capacity to serve demand beyond the associated project).

The Plan is an “infill” project, meaning that the Plan area is within the City’s existing boundaries, already served by existing infrastructure, and planned for urban uses. 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 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, residents, and the overall community. 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 (4,508,000 square feet) within the Plan area. These development amounts are consistent with the growth allowed under the 2045 General Plan Reset.

There are no undeveloped areas adjacent or in the immediate vicinity of the Plan area and the Plan would not remove any obstacles that would help facilitate additional growth that could significantly affect the physical environment. The Plan does not include the expansion of existing infrastructure that would facilitate growth in the Plan area or other areas of the City. Therefore, the Plan would not result in growth-inducing impacts beyond what was envisioned in the City’s 2045 General Plan Reset. (Less than Significant Impact)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1129
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 311 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 5.0 Significant and Irreversible
Environmental Changes
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must identify significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project being analyzed. Significant irreversible changes include the 1) irreversible use of nonrenewable resources, 2) commitment of future generations to similar use, and 3) irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project.

5.1 Irreversible Use of Nonrenewable Resources
Future development under the Plan would require the use of nonrenewable construction material, such as concrete, metals, plastics, and glass. Nonrenewable resources and energy would also be consumed during the manufacturing and transportation of building materials, preparation of the sites, and construction of the buildings. The operational phases would consume energy for multiple purposes including building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, would be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the Plan area.

As discussed in Section 3.6 Energy, build out of the Plan would increase consumption of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. Future development under the Plan would be compliant with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards. For these reasons, the Plan would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources.

5.2 Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Use
Future development under the Plan would commit resources to prepare the sites, construction the buildings, and operate the buildings. Future development would occur on in-fill sites that are already developed. Implementation of the Plan would not result in other land use changes in the surrounding area. As discussed previously, the development projections in the 2045 General Plan Reset EIR included citywide buildout capacity through 2045 (including the Plan). As part of the Plan, the General Plan would be amended to include new land use classifications and zoning districts (refer to Section 2.0 Project Information and Description) which would be used to implement the Plan to facilitate the new development assumed for the Plan area in the 2045 General Plan Reset.

For these reasons, the Plan would not commit future generations to changes in land use beyond what is accounted for in the adopted 2045 General Plan Reset.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1130
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 312 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

5.3 Irreversible Damage Resulting from Environmental
Accidents Associated with the Project
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, residents, and the overall community. The Plan is intended 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 Plan does not propose any new or uniquely hazardous uses, and its operation would not be expected to cause environmental accidents that would impact other areas.

As discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, soil, soil vapor, and groundwater within the Plan area is potentially contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, VOCs and PCBs. 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. All future development (prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that could encounter contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater) would be required to mitigate hazard exposure through adherence to General Plan policies ESPS-5.3, ESPS-5.5, and ESPS-5.6. Additionally, all dewatering activities, including the dewatering of contaminated groundwater, would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the RWQCB and the City’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that contaminated groundwater is disposed of properly and is not discharged into the storm drain system. Adherence with the aforementioned regulations and processes would ensure that future development under the Plan does not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. In addition, there are no significant geology and soils impacts from implementation of the Plan. Based on the discussion above, future developments proposed under the Plan would not result in irreversible damage that may result from environmental accidents.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1131
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 313 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 6.0 Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts
A significant unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level if the Plan is implemented as it is proposed. The following significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified as resulting from the Plan:
• 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 criteria air pollutant emissions impact.
• 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 that would exceed the Bay Area Air District project-level significance thresholds.
• Impact AIR-C: Buildout of the Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant 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.
• Impact GHG-C: Implementation of the Plan would result in a significant cumulative GHG impact.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1132
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 314 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 7.0 Alternatives

7.1.1 Significant Impacts of the Project
As explained above, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that the alternatives analysis in an EIR should be limited to alternatives that are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. Potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from the proposed Plan are evaluated in Chapter 3.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR. As discussed throughout this EIR, with implementation of existing General Plan policies, Specific Plan Project Requirements, and standard requirements, most of the potentially significant impacts resulting from the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The following impacts listed below and summarized in Section 6.0 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, and the alternatives evaluated in this EIR have been selected because they are anticipated to reduce and/or eliminate one or more of the significant impacts associated with the project.
• 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 criteria air pollutant emissions impact.
• 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 that would exceed the Bay Area Air District project-level significance thresholds.
• Impact AIR-C: Buildout of the Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant 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.
• Impact GHG-C: Implementation of the Plan would result in a significant cumulative GHG impact.

7.1.2 Project Objectives
While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the basic objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. As identified in Section 2.4 Project Objectives, the objectives for the project are as follows:

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.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1133
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 315 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026

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.

7.1.3 Feasibility of Alternatives
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law interpreting CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have found that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The CEQA Guidelines state that such factors can include (but are not necessarily limited to) the suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with a general plan or with other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (Section 15126.6[f][1]).”

7.2 Project Alternatives

7.2.1 Project Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Analysis
Location Alternative
In considering an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise that the key question is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location”.142
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 142 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1134
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 316 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
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. 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
Under the current General Plan, housing is a prohibited use within the Plan. 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. 143 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 and of the Plan’s significant impacts. This alternative would not meet the project’s fundamental objectives to introduce housing in the district 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, 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.

7.2.2 Alternatives Selected
The discussion of the alternatives selected is provided below and a summary of the development assumed under the alternatives compared to the Plan is summarized in Table 7.2-1 below. 143 Assumes that the areas that would be developed under the Plan with mixed-use residential would be developed with 785,642 square feet of non-residential uses.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1135
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 317 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Table 7.2-1: Development Summary of Project and Alternatives Selected Net New Non-Residential
(square footage)
Net New Residential
(units)
Plan 4,508,000 1,890
No Project, No New Development
Alternative
0 0
No Project, Existing Plans
Alternative
874,000 0
Reduced Criteria Pollutant
Emissions Alternative
3,606,400 1,512
Enhanced TDM Alternative 4,508,000 1,890
No Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project Alternative is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” The Guidelines emphasize that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment (Section 15126.6[e][3][B]).” The Plan area is currently developed with 2,617,497 square feet of light industrial, office, and institutional uses. The Plan area currently has no housing units and residential uses are not allowed under the existing General Plan land uses and zoning districts.

The EIR evaluates two No Project Alternatives: (1) a No Project, No New Development Alternative and (2) a No Project, Existing Plans Alternative. Under the first, the No Project/No 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). 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.

No Project, No New Development Alternative
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
A summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the Plan and the two No Project Alternatives is provided in Table 7.2-2 below.

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1136
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 318 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
would be required under the Plan would not be implemented. For example, the existing setbacks to Belmont Creek would remain as they currently are. Further, since no redevelopment would occur under this alternative, new publicly accessible open space would not be established.

Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project, No New Development Alternative would not meet any of the project’s objectives.

Under this alternative, conditions would remain as they currently are. No housing would be introduced in the Plan area and multi-modal improvements would not be implemented. Further, opportunities to address flooding and sea level rise through the implementation of resiliency standards and improvements to Belmont Creek would not be accomplished.

Conclusion
The No Project, No New Development Alternative would avoid all the environmental impacts of the Plan. However, this alternative would not accomplish any of the Plan’s environmental benefits and it would not meet any of the Plan’s objectives.

No Project, Existing Plans Alternatives
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Under the No Project Alternative, Existing Plans Alternative, it is assumed that some redevelopment would occur in the Plan area. While the 2045 General Plan Reset Final EIR considered buildout projections that included the anticipated growth of the Plan, the City did not adopt land use changes within the Plan. Therefore, any redevelopment under this alternative would occur in accordance with the existing land use and zoning requirements (refer to Section 2.2.1 of this EIR), which would allow up to 874,000 square feet of net new non-residential uses. The City anticipates that redevelopment would occur on approximately 27 acres within the Plan, as shown on Figure

7.2-1, which was based on parcel size, existing land uses, development patterns, and previous inquiries for redevelopment.

Any redevelopment that involves demolition and/or construction would result in similar construction-related impacts associated with migratory and nesting birds, construction noise, and construction air quality impacts. It is anticipated that under this alternative, the significant NOx and ROG impacts disclosed in Impact AIR-3 would be reduced to less than significant since the alternative would reduce the non-residential development by approximately 80 percent. All other significant and unavoidable impacts of the Plan would continue to result (i.e. rate of trip growth144 and GHG impacts), although at an incrementally reduced levels given the 80 percent reduction in development would lead to reduced criteria pollutants, and reduced GHG emissions from mobile sources.
144 Assuming an approximately 80 percent reduction in service population and trip rates would result in a rate of population growth that is less than the rate of traffic growth.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1137
0 200 400 600 800 Feet
POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES UNDER NO PROJECT, EXISTING PLANS ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 7.2-1 Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063City of San Carlos 319 Dra
Ō EIR
March 2026
June 08, 2026
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 320 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Similar to the No Project, No New Development Alternative, many of the beneficial resiliency standards that would be required under the Plan would not be implemented under this alternative.

For example, the existing setbacks to Belmont Creek would remain as they currently are, while the Plan would require properties undergoing redevelopment adjacent to the creek to provide 35 foot setbacks from top of bank.

Relationship to Project Objectives
This alternative could partially meet Objective 1. All other objectives would not be met under this alternative.

Conclusion
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 3,606,400 square feet of non-residential 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 (similar to what would be allowed under the No Project, Existing Plans Alternative, above), and therefore this alternative instead focuses on the more achievable goal of avoiding the Plan’s significant NOx impact.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Under this alternative, the significant NOx impact disclosed in Impact AIR-3 would be reduced to less than significant, however, while the ROG emissions would also be reduced under this alternative, the magnitude of ROG emissions would exceed the 10 tons per year threshold, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. All other significant and unavoidable impacts of the Plan would continue to result (i.e. rate of trip growth and GHG impacts), although at an incrementally reduced levels given the 20 percent reduction in development would lead to reduced criteria pollutants, and reduced GHG emissions from mobile sources. The other potentially significant impacts resulting from the Plan would be similar in magnitude under this alternative and would require compliance with the same General Plan policies, Specific Plan Project Requirements, and standard requirements, to reduce to a less-than-significant level. With 20 percent less development, there would be incrementally reduced roadway noise, and incrementally improved vehicle level of service on area roadways.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1139
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 321 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Relationship to Project Objectives
This alternative would meet all the project objectives, but not to the same extent since development would be reduced by roughly 20 percent.

Conclusion
The Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions Alternative 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 to the proposed Plan, while project objectives would be largely achieved, although with 20% less development, not to the extent as the Plan.

Enhanced TDM Alternative
As described in Section 3.3 Air Quality, the rate of growth in the Plan’s service population (residents + employees) would be 193 percent, while the rate of growth in trips (and VMT) would be 203 percent, and therefore the Plan would cause a significant air quality impact due to VMT growth outpacing the rate of new Plan residents and employees. This rate of trip (and VMT) growth reflects the requirement that new development under the Plan implement a TDM to achieve a 25 percent trip reduction, with noted exceptions for 100 percent affordable housing, small housing projects, and small non-residential projects. 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.145 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 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 4,508,00 square feet of non-residential and up to 1,890 residential units.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Under this alternative, Impact AIR-1 would be reduced to less than significant. Future development, with exceptions for 100 percent affordable housing, and small housing and small non-residential projects, would be required to reduce daily trips by an additional five percent, for a 30 percent overall trip reduction, which would be consistent with the rate of population growth envisioned under the Plan. All other significant and unavoidable impacts of the Plan would continue to result 145 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. 1140
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 322 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
(i.e. operational criteria pollutants [ROG and NOx] exceeding numeric thresholds, and GHG impacts), although at an incrementally reduced levels given the additional five percent reduction in trips would lead to reduced criteria pollutants, and reduced GHG emissions from mobile sources.

The other potentially significant impacts resulting from the Plan would be similar in magnitude under this alternative and would require compliance with the same General Plan policies, Specific Plan Project Requirements, and standard requirements, to reduce to a less-than-significant level.

With five percent fewer trips, there would be incrementally reduced roadway noise, and incrementally improved vehicle level of service on area roadways.

Relationship to Project Objectives
This alternative would meet all the project objectives.

Conclusion
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 all future development under the Plan being able to achieve a 30 percent trip reduction is unknown.

Table 7.2-2: Comparison of Impacts from Alternatives to the Proposed Project Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Development
Alternative
No Project,
Existing Plans
Alternative
Reduced
Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions
Alternative
Enhanced
TDM
Alternative
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
criteria air pollutant
emissions impact.

SU NI SU SU LTS
Impact AIR-2: Future
construction under the
Plan, if uncontrolled,

LTS NI LTS LTS LTS

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1141
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 323 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Development
Alternative
No Project,
Existing Plans
Alternative
Reduced
Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions
Alternative
Enhanced
TDM
Alternative
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.

Impact AIR-3: Buildout
of the Plan would
result in annual and
average daily emissions
of ROG, NOx, and PM10,
and PM2.5 associated
with operation of the
Plan Area would
exceed the Bay Area
Air District project-level
significance thresholds.

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

SU NI SU SU SU
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.

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1142
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 324 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Development
Alternative
No Project,
Existing Plans
Alternative
Reduced
Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions
Alternative
Enhanced
TDM
Alternative
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.

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

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

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
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.

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Impact CUL-2: Future
development projects
under the Plan could
inadvertently discover
unknown archaeological

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1143
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 325 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Development
Alternative
No Project,
Existing Plans
Alternative
Reduced
Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions
Alternative
Enhanced
TDM
Alternative
resources during
construction.

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

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
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.

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
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.

SU NI SU SU SU
Impact GHG-C:

Implementation of the
Plan would result in a
significant cumulative
GHG impact.

SU NI SU SU SU
Impact HAZ-1: Future
development within the

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1144
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 326 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Development
Alternative
No Project,
Existing Plans
Alternative
Reduced
Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions
Alternative
Enhanced
TDM
Alternative
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.

Impact NOI-1: Future
construction associated
with development under
the Plan could result in
temporary construction
noise impacts.

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

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Impact NOI-3: Future
construction associated
with development under
the Plan could result in
damage to existing
buildings from
temporary construction
vibration.

LTS/M NI LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Meets City’s
Objectives?
Objective 1 Yes No Partially Partially Yes
Objective 2 Yes No No Partially Yes
Objective 3 Yes No No Partially Yes
Objective 4 Yes No No Partially Yes

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1145
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 327 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Notes: LTS/M = less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold text indicates being environmentally superior to the proposed project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project, No New Development Alternative.

This alternative would avoid all the environmental impacts of the Plan. However, this alternative would not accomplish any of the Plan’s environmental benefits nor would it meet any of the Plan’s objectives. Beyond the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Criteria Pollutant Emissions Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. Under this alternative, the significant NOx emissions disclosed in Impact AIR-3 would be reduced to less than significant, however, the Plan’s ROG emissions would remain above the threshold. All other significant and unavoidable impacts of the Plan would continue to result (i.e. rate of trip growth and GHG impacts), although at an incrementally reduced levels given the 20 percent reduction in development would lead to reduced criteria pollutants, and reduced GHG emissions from mobile sources. The other potentially significant impacts resulting from the Plan would be similar in magnitude under this alternative and would require compliance with the same General Plan policies, Specific Plan Project Requirements, and standard requirements, to reduce to a less-than-significant level. With 20 percent fewer trips, there would be incrementally reduced roadway noise, and incrementally improved vehicle level of service on area roadways.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1146
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 328 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 8.0 References
The analysis in this Environmental Impact Report is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.

Bay Area Air District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023 Bay Area Air District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E:

Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management 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
California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed September 3, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

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-cleancars-ii CARB. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022.

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed July 26, 2024. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.

California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1147
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 329 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed July 26, 2024. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed September 12, 2024. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Energy Commission (CEC). “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energyefficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency.

California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed August 14, 2024.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for SingleFamily Residential.” Revised July 15, 2022. Accessed August 28, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022_Singlefamily_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.

California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Multifamily.” Revised August 4, 2022. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
08/2022_Multifamily_Whats_new_Summary_ADA.pdf.

California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Nonresidential.” Revised August 4, 2022. Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
08/2022_Nonresidential_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.

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=.

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.

California Department of Transportation. “Scenic Highways.” Accessed August 10, 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1148
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 330 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

CalFire. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed August 30, 2024. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ 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_Supple ment.pdf.

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%2 02011%20update.pdf.

CalRecycle. “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals (DRRR2020-1693).” Accessed August 19, 2024. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020 _2022_integrated_report.html.

California Water Service Mid-Peninsula District. Water Supply Assessment for the City of San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan. January 2025.

City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. October 2015.

Cornerstone Earth Group. Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan. January 11, 2023
Education Data Partnership. “Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary.” Accessed February 13, 2025. https://www.ed-data.org/district/San-Mateo/Belmont--Redwood-Shores-Elementary Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Biological Resources Report. May 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1149
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 331 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Illingworth & Rodkin. Northeast Area Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Noise Assessment. April 2025.

Illingworth & Rodkin. Northeast Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment.

April 2025.

Mid-Peninsula Water District. Water Supply Assessment for the City of San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan. February 2025.

Nelson\Nygard. Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) – Transportation Analysis (FINAL). December 2024.

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 2024.

Peninsula Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/faq/.

Peninsula Clean Energy. “Energy Choices.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/energy-choices/.

Ricondo & Associates, Inc. with Jacobs Consultancy and Clarion Associates, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012.

San Mateo County. San Mateo County GIS open data – Williamson Act Parcels. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://data-smcmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/williamson-actparcels/explore Schaaf & Wheeler. San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Flood Impact Study. March 2025.

Schaaf & Wheeler. Industrial Road Drainage Study. 2004.

State of California. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2024. May 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-populationand-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ Strategic Economics. DRAFT: Public Services Cost Assessment. October 15, 2024.

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-new-vehicle-fuel-economystandards-model-year-2024-2026.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1150
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 332 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
United States Energy Information Administration. “California State Energy Profile.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.

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 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.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed September 3, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summaryresource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actionsprotect-public-exposure-asbestos United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 14, 2024. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

USGS. Interactive Fault Map. Accessed August 29, 2024.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1151
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 333 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 9.0 Lead Agency and Consultants

9.1 Lead Agency
City of San Carlos
Al Savay, Community and Economic Development Director
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Sajuti Haque, Economic Development & Housing Manager
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Lisa Costa Sanders, Good City Company

9.2 Consultants
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Akoni Danielsen, President and Principal
Natalie Noyes, Senior Project Manager
Desiree DeRossi, Project Manger
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist
Cornerstone Earth Group
Hazardous Materials Consultant
Kurt M. Soenen, P.E.

H.T. Harvey & Associates
Biological Consultant
Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal, Wildlife Ecology
Robin Carle, Principal, Wildlife Ecology
Illingworth & Rodkin
Air Quality and Acoustical Consultants
James Reyff, Principal
Michael Thill, Principal
Carrie Janello, Senior Consultant
PaleoWest
Cultural Resource Specialists
Perkins & Wills
Planning Consultant
Nelson\Nygard Consulting Associates
Transportation Consultants

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1152
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 334 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
Section 10.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM asbestos-containing material
AFY acre-feet per year
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AIA Airport Influence Area
AMSL above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATCM air toxic control measure
Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area
BFE base flood elevation
bgs below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
BPMP Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
BRSSD the Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District Btu British thermal unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
Cal Water MidPeninsula District California Water Service Mid-Peninsula District CBC California Building Standards Code
CCA Community Choice Aggregate
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1153
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 335 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County CFC California Fire Code
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMAP City of San Carlos 2021 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSMHSA County of San Mateo Health Services Agency
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
DNL Day/Night Average Sound Level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1154
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 336 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
EV electric vehicle
EVCS electric vehicle charging stations
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRS Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
GI Green Infrastructure
GWh gigawatt hour
GWP Global Warming Potential
Habitat Plan Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
ibid Same source as previous footnote
ISG Individual Supply Guarantee
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LID low impact development
Leq Energy-Equivalent Sound/Noise Descriptor
Lmax Maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period LBP lead-based paint
LCI Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MGD million gallons per day
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MJHMP San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Federal Emergency Management Agency

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1155
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 337 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mpg miles per gallon
MPWD Mid-Peninsula Water District
MROSD Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MSL mean sea level
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NOI Notice of Intent
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOD Notice of Determination
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
OITC Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class
OHW ordinary high water mark
PAMF Palo Alto Medical Foundation
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PFC perfluorocarbon
PDA Priority Development Areas
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM particulate matter

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1156
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 338 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less ppd pounds per day
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
RC-SCFD Redwood City-San Carlos Fire Department
R&D Research and Development
RAP Removal Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Need Allocation
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWS Regional Water System
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SB Senate Bill
SBR South Bay Recycling
SCMC San Carlos Municipal Code
SCP Stormwater Control Plan
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDMP Citywide Storm Drain System Master Plan
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMCSO San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
SCSD San Carlos School District
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program SMGB State Mining and Geology Board
SMP Site Management Plan
SOx sulfur oxides
SR State Route

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1157
Northeast Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2024070063 339 Draft EIR City of San Carlos March 2026
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRP San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan
SSMP San Carlos Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
STC Sound Transmission Class
SUHSD Sequoia Union High School District
SVCW Silicon Valley Clean Water
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management
Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations TMDL total maximum daily load
TOC Transit Oriented Community
TPA Transit Priority Area
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WELO Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act
WMP waste management plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WUI wildland-urban interface
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZNE zero net carbon emission
i

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1158
City Hall
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070-3085
Planning Division
TELEPHONE (650) 802–4263
FAX (650) 595-6763
http://www.cityofsancarlos.org
NOTICE OF PREPARATION and

NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
Date July 1, 2024
To: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
San Mateo County Clerk
Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Interested Individuals and Organizations
From: Lisa Porras
Planning Manager
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070-3085
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP)
Lead Agency: City of San Carlos
Project Title: San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (project) Project Location: Northeast Plan Area of San Carlos (north of Holly Street, to the San Carlos city limits at Belmont Creek, and between U.S. Highway 101 and Old Country Road) Call for Comments:

The City of San Carlos (City) is requesting written comments from responsible agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The program-level EIR will evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the likely type and amount of development projected under the 2045 horizon year. This EIR will not evaluate detailed, site-specific activities and future development projects under the NEASP.

The City requests your written comments as to the scope of the EIR, including mitigation measures and/or project alternatives to reduce potential environmental impacts from the proposed project.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1159
ʹ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ
Preparing an Environmental Impact Report:

Notice is hereby given that the City will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an EIR for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15060(d) as identified above and described in the attached materials.

Comment Submittal:

Written comments on the NOP are due no later than the close of the 36-day NOP review period at 5:00 p.m. on August 6th, 2024. Please send your written comments to Lisa Porras, Planning Manager, at the address or email address shown below with “San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan EIR” as the subject.

Public agencies providing comments are asked to include a contact person for the agency.

City of San Carlos Planning Division
Attention: Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
600 Elm Street, San Carlos California 94070-3085
[email protected]
Scoping Meeting:

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15082(c), notice is hereby given that the City will conduct a public Scoping Meeting on August 5, 2024 at 7:00 PM. This meeting will be conducted both in person at City Hall and virtually via Zoom.

In-Person Participation
The meeting will be held at the Planning and Transportation Commission regular meeting location in the City Hall Council Chambers, 600 Elm Street.

To address the Commission on any item on the posted agenda, fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the back of the Council Chambers and submit it to staff; or you may raise your hand when the Chair calls for public comments.

Masks are no longer required, but are still recommended by the California Department of Health. To maintain public health and safety, please do not attend in person if you are experiencing respiratory symptoms (e.g. cough, runny nose, and/or sore throat).

Remote Participation
This meeting may also be attended remotely via the following options:
x Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88635467439; or call 1-669-900-9128 and enter the Meeting ID #: 886 3546 7439
x Meeting Webportal: www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda
x Local TV: Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99 If you are participating remotely and plan to make a public comment on any item on the posted agenda, please observe the meeting via Zoom (see above access information), and, during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address, use the “raise hand” feature. If joining Zoom by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1160
͵ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ
Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Date of Distribution: July 1, 2024
Introduction
The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision-makers and the general public of the environmental impacts of a proposed project that an agency (in this case, the City of San Carlos) may implement or approve. The EIR process is intended to: (1) provide information sufficient to evaluate a project and its potential for significant impacts on the environment; (2) examine methods (e.g., projectspecific mitigations, uniformly applied development regulations) for avoiding or reducing significant impacts; and (3) consider alternatives to the proposed project.

In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIR will include the following:
x A summary of the project, its potential significant environmental impacts, and mitigations required to avoid or reduce those significant impacts;
x A project description;
x A description of the existing environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigations for the project;
x Alternatives to the proposed project; and
x Other environmental consequences of the project, including o (1) growth-inducing effects
o (2) significant unavoidable impacts
o (3) irreversible environmental changes
o (4) cumulative impacts, and
o (5) effects found not to be significant.

Project Location:

The Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) area 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, and the southeast property line of the Palo Alto Medical Facilities (PAMF) and Old County Road. 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 Figures 1 through 3 for maps showing the project location and surrounding context.

Project Description
The purpose of the NEASP 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, residents, and the overall community. The NEASP 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.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1161
Ͷ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ
The NEASP would be built out over an approximate 20-year period and would allow for a net increase of 1,890 residential units (no residential units exist within the Plan area currently), as well as an increase in the net square footage of existing non-residential land uses within the Plan area, as summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1 NEASP Development Projections
Land Use Allowable Square Footage Net Increase
Non Residential Development 4,508,000
Residential Development 1,890,000 (1,890 Units)
Maximum building heights within the NEASP area would range from a minimum of 75 to 100 feet and a maximum of 90 to 155 feet, depending on the land use designation. Additional height increases for specific land uses would be permitted by the City should bonus conditions determined by the City be met, as shown in Table 2 below. The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport (ALUCP) dictates the maximum height permitted within the NEASP to protect navigable airspace around the airport.

Table 2 Maximum Height Allowances
Land Use Base Height Assumption Bonus Height Permitted
Light Industrial Sub Area 1 100 155
Light Industrial Sub Area 2 75 155
Light Industrial Sub Area 3 75 75
Residential Mixed Use Sub Area 1 90 N/A
Residential Mixed Use Sub Area 2 75 N/A
The land use categories identified in Table 2 include Sub-Areas, which would be facets of zoning districts that include a base height allowance as well as a bonus maximum height allowance and floor area. These height and density standards will vary depending on location within the Plan area.

The NEASP is proposing a step down of building heights for properties directly abutting the Greater East San Carlos Neighborhood.

A new street segment from Quarry Road to Bragato Road would be implemented as part of the NEASP.

Additionally, the NEASP would include improvements to the existing transportation network, such as a pedestrian/bicycle connection to Belmont Creek from Quarry Road and the redesign of Industrial Road as a multi-modal district boulevard. The NEASP would increase the setback from Belmont Creek for properties adjacent to Belmont Creek.

A General Plan Amendment and rezoning are proposed to allow for the addition of residential land uses to the Plan area. Please see Figure 4 for a map of the proposed land uses within the NEASP.

Potential Environmental Impacts of the Project
The EIR will identify the significant environmental effects anticipated to result from development and operation of the project as proposed. The EIR will include the following specific environmental categories as related to the proposed project:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1162
ͷ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ

1. Aesthetics
The EIR will describe the existing visual setting of the NEASP area and the visual changes that are anticipated to occur as a result of the NEASP. Aesthetic impacts will be evaluated pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21099. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The EIR will describe the NEASP’s impact (if any) on existing farmland, forest land, and timberland.

According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland 2018 Map, properties within the Plan area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and therefore the Plan area does not include land mapped as farmland.

3. Air Quality
The EIR will describe the regional air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area and evaluate the air quality impacts from implementation of the NEASP in conformance with the criteria identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Given the timing and nature of individual construction projects are unknown, construction air quality impacts and health risk impacts would be addressed qualitatively. Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants from buildout of the Plan would be computed using the CalEEMod model supplemented with the most recently available on-road mobile emission factors, and compared to relevant BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

4. Biological Resources
The NEASP area is mostly developed and consists of four habitat types/land uses: developed/landscaped (143.2 acres), riparian (1.2 acres), freshwater marsh (0.6 acre), and aquatic riverine (0.4 acre). There are also a variety of trees present throughout the Plan area, on private properties and within the public right-of-way. The EIR will evaluate the NEASP’s impact on biological resources within and near the Plan area, including sensitive habitats and special-status species. The NEASP’s consistency with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources will also be discussed. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

5. Cultural Resources
There are numerous existing buildings within the Plan area, many of which are older than 50 years and may be historic resources. Additionally, the area is adjacent to Belmont Creek, and may be sensitive for archaeological resources. The EIR will include a discussion of potential impacts to cultural and archaeological resources that could result from implementation of the NEASP. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1163
͸ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ

6. Energy
The EIR will examine the potential for the NEASP to result in excessive or inefficient use of energy and discuss the energy conservation measures to be included in future development implementing the NEASP. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

7. Geology and Soils
The project site is in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The EIR will describe the general geologic and soil conditions within the NEASP area and discuss possible geological impacts associated with seismic activity and the existing soil conditions. The potential for future development construction activity to encounter paleontological resources (i.e. fossils) will also be assessed. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The EIR will qualitatively discuss the NEASP’s consistency and conformance with applicable plans, policies, and/or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There are sites within the NEASP area with reported spill incidents impacting soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater. The EIR will evaluate the potential for the NEASP to result in a hazard to the public or environment from the transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. The Plan area is located within the San Carlos Airport Influence Area. The EIR will discuss the NEASP’s conformance with applicable Airport Land Use Commission polices governing development near the San Carlos Airport, located to the southeast of the Plan area. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
The NEASP area is bounded by Belmont Creek to the north, and the area has experienced localized flooding. The EIR will describe the general hydrologic and drainage conditions of the NEASP area and any changes in site drainage and hydrological conditions resulting from implementation of the proposed NEASP. The EIR will also describe impacts on stormwater runoff quantity/quality and groundwater resources. Impacts related to inundation and the potential for subsidence will also be discussed.

Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

11. Land Use
The EIR will evaluate if the NEASP would physically divide an established community or cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with relevant land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Land use impacts that would

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1164
͹ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ
occur as a result of the proposed project will be analyzed, including the consistency of the project with the City’s General Plan and zoning code and compatibility of the proposed and existing land uses in the project area. The effect of the project on the City’s jobs/housing balance will also be analyzed. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

12. Noise and Vibration
The existing, predominate noise sources in the NEASP area include vehicular traffic along roadways (including US 101, Industrial Road, and Old Country Road), trains along Caltrain’s tracks, and aircraft operations associated with the San Carlos Airport. The EIR will evaluate noise and vibration impacts from buildout of the NEASP with respect to existing standards. The EIR will also discuss the NEASP’s consistency with the San Carlos Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, particularly its potential to expose people residing or working in the NEASP area to excessive aircraft noise levels. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

13. Mineral Resources
The EIR will describe whether the NEASP would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site.

14. Population and Housing
Currently, there are no residential uses within the NEASP area. For this reason, the NEASP would not displace existing housing or residents. The NEASP proposes 1,890 new housing units, which would house a population of approximately 3,700 residents. The EIR will discuss if the NEASP would induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, beyond what is proposed as part of the NEASP, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

15. Public Services
The EIR will describe the available public services (e.g., fire and police protection, schools, libraries, and parks) in the NEASP area and the potential for the NEASP to require the expansion or construction of additional facilities. The EIR discussion will focus on whether the expansion or construction of additional facilities would result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

16. Recreation
The EIR will describe the available recreational facilities in the NEASP area and the potential for the NEASP to substantially accelerate the deterioration of those facilities or require the expansion or construction of additional facilities, and whether the expansion or new construction of additional facilities would result in significant environmental impacts.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1165
ͺ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ

17. Transportation
The EIR will evaluate possible transportation impacts from implementation of the NEASP using the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric. The EIR will discuss the NEASP’s consistency with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system (including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities). Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
The EIR will identify whether tribal cultural resources have been identified in the area, including through consultation with a tribe(s) culturally affiliated with the area, per Assembly Bill 52. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as warranted.

19. Utilities
The EIR will describe the existing sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, and solid waste services for the NEASP area. The EIR will discuss the adequacy of the existing utilities and service systems to accommodate the demand from the proposed NEASP and identify necessary improvements. Pursuant to SB 610, a Water Supply Assessment for the NEASP will be completed by the local water retailer serving the area and included in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts, as necessary.

20. Wildfire
The proposed project is located within an urbanized area of the City of San Carlos and is not within a State Responsibility Area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones according to CalFire.

The EIR will discuss whether the NEASP would impact or exacerbate wildfire risk and/or impair emergency response.

21. Alternatives
The EIR will examine alternatives to the NEASP including a “No Project” alternative and one or more alternative development scenarios depending on the impacts identified. Alternatives discussed will be chosen based on their ability to reduce or avoid identified significant impacts of the proposed project while achieving most of the identified objectives of the project.

22. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR will identify those significant impacts that cannot be avoided, if the project is implemented as proposed.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1166
ͻ ‹–›‘ˆƒƒ”Ž‘•Ȃ‘”–Š‡ƒ•–”‡ƒ’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ

23. Cumulative Impacts
The EIR will include an analysis of potentially significant cumulative impacts of the project when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the development area.

24. Other Required Sections
In conformance with the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will also include the following sections: 1) growthinducing impacts, 2) significant irreversible environmental changes, 3) references and organizations/persons consulted, and 4) EIR authors.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1167
San Mateo
Foster City
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
East Palo
Alto
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Woodside
Portola
Valley
Los Altos
Hills
San Mateo
Foster City
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
East Palo
Alto
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Woodside
Portola
Valley
Los Altos
Hills
280
280
82 82
92 84
92 101
101
SAN

FRANCISCO
BAY
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1
01 .5 5 Miles
San Francisco Bay
PaciĮc Ocean
Monterey Bay
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain
View
Morgan Hill
Project Site
Project Site
San Carlos

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1168
Industrial Road
Holly Street
Tay or Way l
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
Shorelin e Dr ve i
Ralston Avenue
El Camino Real
Old County Road
Old County Road
Caltrain
Caltrain
101
101
Project Boundary
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 200 800 1,200 2,000 Feet
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2
z~ I
/
/
I
I
I J

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1169
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 Parkway
Industrial Road
Old County Road
Old County Road
Caltrain Caltrain
Caltrain Caltrain
Harbor Boulevard
Quarry Road
Belmont Creek
Bragato Road
Glenn Way
Taylor Way
El Camino Real
Twin Dolphin Drive Twin Dolphin Drive
101
101
Photo Date: Apr. 2022
0 150 600 900 1,500 Feet
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 6, 2024.

San Carlos
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROJECT SITE FIGURE 3

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1170
Light Industrial 1
Light Industrial 2 Light Industrial 3
Residential Mixed-Use 1
Residential Mixed-Use 2
Institutional
Source: Perkins & Will.

NEW STREET SEGMENT
WZKWK^
LAND USES FIGURE 4
~\>
tEAL
D
co
"' 0
co "' <(
I
,, San Carlos City Boundary
I
I
I
us 101 I
I
I
-
le
To San Carlos Airport
'

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
SUB AREA 1

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
SUBAREA2

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
SUB AREA3

RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE
SUB AREA 1

RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE
SUB AREA2

INSTITUTIONAL
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1171

















 



 





•

 






%05
+"

*

.(+/

 2
*!(
**%*#%05+"
*
.(+/+.#
!


!*!.
(
(
*
!/!0


+
3$+)
%0
)
5
+*!.*


!

.!
0$!
+3*!./
+"



* 1/0.%
(
+

%*

*

.(+/

/
3!
$
2!
.!#%/0!.!
3%0$
0$!
%05
%*
0$!
,
/0
3!

.!
!40.!)!(5
+*!.*!

+10
0$!
!""!0
+"

0$!
,.+,+/!
.!6+*%*#

*
$+3
%0
3%((

""!0
+1.
,.+,!.05

/
3!

.!


0.%
*#1(
.
/$
,!
,
.!(

*
$
2!


.!-1%.!
/!0

'
".+)
0$!

&
!*0
.!/% !*0%
(

*!%#$
+.$++

((+3%*#
"+.
(%)%0!
.! !2!(+,)!*0
,+0!*0%
(
3!
3%((
/1""!.


/1
/0
*0%
(
.! 10%+*
%*

2 (1!
"+.
+1.
,.+,!.05

!
3+1(
2%!3
0$%/

/


0
'%*#
1!
0+


/!2!.!
%)%*%/$)!*0
%*
10%(%05
+"

+1.
,
.!(/

!

!(%!2!
0$
0
)+.!
*!! /
0+

!
+*!

5
0$!
%05
%*
%0/
!2
(1
0%+*
+"
0$%/
,.+,+/
(

•
$!
%05
*!! /
0+
+
)!
*%*#"1(
+10.!
$
0+
*+0
+*(5
3%0$
0$!
,.+,!.05
+3*!./

10

(/+

0$!
+))!.%
(

.+'!./

.$%0!0/

*
!2!(+,!./
0+
"1((5
1* !./0
*
0$!
.
)%"%
0%+*/

+"
0$!
,(
*


•
*!
0$%/
%/
+*!
0$!
%05
3%((
1* !./0
*
0$
0
0$!
,.+,+/!
,(
*
)
5

!
(%)%0%*#
0$!
1/!

+"
+1.
,.+,!.0%!/
!/,!%
((5
3%0$
.!/,!0
0+
.! !2!(+,%*#
0$!)
"+.
)1(0%"
)%(5

.!/% !*0%
(
1/!/

/
0$!.!
%/


/!2!.!
*!!
"+.
-1
(%05
$+1/%*#
*+0
+*(5
%*
+1.
.!#%+*

10

/


0
0!

/


3$+(!


•
$!
%05
*!! /
0+
+*/% !.
+ (5
/$
,!
,
.!(/
,.+4%)%05
0+
0$!
3
0!.3
5/

*
+0$!.

0+,+#.
,$%

*+)
(%!/
,.!/!*0
%*
0$%/
,(
**%*#

.!

•
"
0$!
%05
%/
+))%//%+*%*#

*
!+*+)%
"!
/%
%(%05
/01 5
,.+,!.05
+3*!./

*
+0$!.

/0
'!$+( !./
*!!
0+
%*0!.
0
3%0$
0$!
"%.)
,.!,
.%*#
0$!
/01 5


!
/0.+*#(5
1.#!
5+1
0+
!4!),0
0$!

/+10$!.*
)+/0
,
.!(/
".+)

!+)%*#


.!/% !*0%
(
)%4!

1/!
6+*%*#

(!
/!
+*0
0
)!
3%0$

*5
-1!/0%+*/

)
5

*/3!.
"+.
5+1

$
*'
5+1
"+.
5+1.
+*/% !.
0%+*

+1./
/%*!.!(5

0!,$!*
3%.!


*
#!.
* 1/0.%
(





!,.!/!*0
0%2!

1/!5
*2!/0)!*0/
7
* 1/0.%
(
+



10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1172
RE: NASP - Grandfathering Uses
Todd Trekell <[email protected]>
Tue 7/2/2024 3:42 PM
To:Al Savay <[email protected]>
Cc:Sajuti Haque <[email protected]>;Lisa Porras <[email protected]>;Lisa Costa Sanders <[email protected]>;Marc Asnis <[email protected]> External Sender - From: (Todd Trekell
<[email protected]>)
This message came from outside your organization.

Learn More
Good Afternoon Al,
I received the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting this morning for the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP).

I wanted to follow up on our email dialogue from March regarding the concept of expanding the grandfathering clause within your zoning code. By expanding the clause as proposed below, many of the legal non-conforming uses with the NEASP will have the ability to remodel, expand, etc. their buildings to meet the needs of their customers. It is my understanding that an owner of a legal nonconforming use would not have the ability to add square footage or an additional floor to their existing buildings based on how the grandfather clause is currently written.

Are you and your team currently evaluating the idea of implementing a text amendment to the zoning code that would expand the grandfathering clause as part of the NEASP? Thank you,
Todd C. Trekell
Development Manager
10121 Miller Ave., Suite 200 | Cupertino, CA 95014
W: (408) 200-8904 | C: (408) 603-9403
[email protected]
From: Todd Trekell
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 10:10 AM
To: Al Savay <[email protected]>
Cc: SajuƟ Haque <[email protected]>; Lisa Porras <[email protected]>; Lisa Costa Sanders <[email protected]>; Marc Asnis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: NASP - Grandfathering Uses
Good Morning Al,
Thank you for the prompt reply.

We are looking to protect property and small business owners who are or may become a legal, nonconforming use within the draft Northeast Area Specific Plan. -- --------

HUNTER PROPERTIES

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1173
We believe that all existing and future legal, non-conforming uses within the proposed NASP should be allowed to expand their business operations in their occupancy, building floor areas and heights without the fear of being forced to sell, or to move because of an inability to expand. This should be allowed to be achieved using a Conditional Use Permit process.

When we stated that “in keeping with the Specific Plan development standards” we were referring to the proposed heights, FARs, etc. of the NASP which we believe are appropriate for the area.

Grandfathering uses (such as self-storage) allows property owners such as ourselves and others to expand if they deem it necessary to meet the ever changing needs of their customers.

Bay Area Self Storage has been operating in San Carlos for more than 30 years. Our facility is starting to show its age. We would like to reinvest in the property to meet the growing demand of self-storage in San Carlos. We have determined that to meet the growing demand we need to increase our square footage from 60,000 to approximately 125,000 SF. We can achieve this within 35’ height. If we were to do this, we could also explore the idea to incorporate the concept of removing our building that parallels Belmont Creek and provide a more substantial setback to help the City meet its goals of stormwater resiliency.

I look forward to working with you and your team on this matter.

Thank you,
Todd C. Trekell
Development Manager
10121 Miller Ave., Suite 200 | Cupertino, CA 95014
W: (408) 200-8904 | C: (408) 603-9403
[email protected]
From: Al Savay <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:30 PM
To: Todd Trekell <Todd@hunterproperƟes.com>
Cc: SajuƟ Haque <[email protected]>; Lisa Porras <[email protected]>; Lisa Costa Sanders <[email protected]>; Marc Asnis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: NASP - Grandfathering Uses
Hi Todd:

We will get back to you in the near future. We will need to know more about what you are aiming for with the language/what you want to achieve.

The intent of the plan is to have substantial expansions conform with the policies and standards of the Specific Plan so positive change in the district will occur over time. It seems to say that expansions “in keeping with the Plan” should be allowed which is good.

The grandfathering idea being explored is to allow some reasonable expansions that would not trigger certain requirements in the Plan. -- --------
HUNTER PROPERTIE~
--- ------

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1174
Thanks, Al
Al Savay, AICP
Community & Economic Development Director
City of San Carlos, California
PH: (650) 802-4209
[email protected]
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
From: Todd Trekell <Todd@hunterproperƟes.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:57 AM
To: Al Savay <[email protected]>
Subject: NASP - Grandfathering Uses
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of San Carlos -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open aƩachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good Morning Al,
I hope this email finds you well. It is my understanding that you and your team are currently working on language that would reinforce the grandfathering concept for non-conforming uses within the NASP. We believe that the following language should be evaluated:
“Any existing lawful non-residential nonconforming use in the Specific Plan may be expanded in its occupancy, building floor area and height, in keeping with the Specific Plan development standards, including through demolition and new construction, subject to Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit in accord with Municipal Code Chapter 18.30, Use Permits.” How does your schedule look to discuss further?
Thank you,
Todd C. Trekell
Development Manager
10121 Miller Ave., Suite 200 | Cupertino, CA 95014
W: (408) 200-8904 | C: (408) 603-9403
[email protected]
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam.

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. ----------
----------
-- --------
IIUNTER PROPI'.RT!I'.S

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1175
From: Gretchen Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 2:47 PM
To: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Cc: Ann SƟllman <asƟ[email protected]>; Michael Byrne <[email protected]>; Bharat Singh <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on the San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan - NoƟce of PreparaƟon of a DraŌ Environmental Impact Report External Sender - From: (Gretchen Kelly <[email protected]>) This message came from outside your organization.

Learn More
Advance Planning Division,,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

Upon review, we found that the proposed building heights may exceed the limits set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the San Carlos Airport. The FAA provides an online obstruction evaluation tool to determine the maximum allowable building heights near airports, which we have used to estimate the building heights for the four corners of the proposed Northeast Area (see attached).

For an official determination from the FAA, it is recommended that a 7460-1 form be filed for each proposed structure prior to final approval.

Thank you,
GȾetɭȱʑɚ Kɰɸʙɨ (she/her)
Manager, County of San Mateo Airports
650.573.3700 | [email protected]££
From: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:45 PM
Subject: San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan - NoƟce of PreparaƟon (NOP) of a DraŌ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of San Mateo County. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open aƩachments or reply.

The City of San Carlos is currently creating the Northeast Area Specific Plan, which will create a vision, policies, and standards to guide new development in the northeast area of San Carlos. The Northeast Area is defined as the area north of Holly Street, to the San Carlos city limits at Belmont Creek, and between Highway 101 and Old County Road. --------

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1176
Specific Plans are required to undergo an environmental assessment, as required by the State of California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City released the attached Notice of Preparation (NOP) on July 1, 2024, inviting all interested parties to attend a public hearing on the scope of the environmental review. This public hearing will be held at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos. This public hearing on August 5, also referred to as a “Scoping Meeting” under CEQA, will be an opportunity for the community to learn more about the Northeast Area Specific Plan, and to share verbal comments regarding the environmental review.

Written comments on the NOP will be accepted until 5:00 pm on August 6, 2024. Consider framing your comments with: “I think the EIR should evaluate [insert topic] or “I would like for the EIR to include an evaluation of [insert topic].

The NOP is available as an attachment and on the project website at www.sancarlosnortheastplan.com. It includes specific instructions on how to join the meeting in-person or virtually, and on how to provide written comments.

For questions or comments regarding this project, please contact: [email protected].

Please reach out if you have any questions.

Regards,
Advance Planning Division
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
Email:[email protected]
IWII ft [S P.IRIC
•••
UIR ISUND :;rm
IUFl~t Pan~
lRBUEUONU
•• • " ..
0 10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1177
The Federal Aviation Administration's online notice criteria tool provides the following approximate maximum building heights for each location, assuming a site elevation of 0 feet:The Federal Aviation Administration's online notice criteria tool provides the following approximate maximum building heights for each location, assuming asite elevation of 0 feet:
46 feet 77 feet 107 feet 91 feet
0 •

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1178
Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan
Carlos Hernandez <[email protected]>
Mon 7/8/2024 3:15 PM
To:Sajuti Haque <[email protected]>;Lisa Porras <[email protected]>;Al Savay <[email protected]>
Cc:Tyler Paetkau <[email protected]>;Jim Hartnett <[email protected]> 1 attachments (4 MB)
San Carlos NEASP NOP - 6.28.24.pdf;
External Sender - From: (Carlos Hernandez
<[email protected]>)
This message came from outside your organization.

Learn More
Hello Sajuti,
Looking at this proposal, we are somehow concerned that our location is limited to maximum height allowances of base 75 ft and bonus of 75 ft.

This is concerning as it limits us for any type of future growth and/or adjustments. At this point we do not have clarity of what will be required 5-10 yrs from today. But this limits our location. The products we make are currently limited by the height of the cranes and roof. The industry is moving to larger units, which might require us to raise the roof to manufacture these units.

We are also looking at advanced manufacturing equipment which requires a taller building so we can use this technology since doing underground pits of 10-15 ft is not an alternative and could be much more expensive.

We believe that we need to be classified same as group Light Industrial Sub Area 1 which allows for base of 100 ft and bonus of 155 ft.

Please make the corrections to the proposed plan so our location is not limited to potential growth and expansion.

Thank you,
Carlos H.

Carlos Hernandez
General Manager
Tel: 650-508-2850 | Mobile: 901-860-8052
[email protected] | www.DeltaStar.com
Delta Star, Inc.
270 Industrial Rd.

San Carlos, California 94070
U%wBPGMMa8aB7}Pn
On Jul 2, 2024, at 09:27, Sajuti Haque <[email protected]> wrote:

ODIJ

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1179
CAUTION: This email originated from this address: "[email protected]" which is outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.

Hello Carlos,
As a key stakeholder in the development of a new Specific Plan for San Carlos’ Northeast Area, we want to noƟfy you that the environmental review process for the plan has begun. This environmental review is required by the State of California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City released the NoƟce of PreparaƟon (NOP) on July 1, 2024, inviƟng all interested parƟes to aƩend a public hearing on the scope of the environmental review. This public hearing will be held at the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission meeƟng on Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos. This public hearing on August 5, also referred to as a “Scoping MeeƟng” under CEQA, will be an opportunity for the community to learn more about the Northeast Area Specific Plan, and to share verbal comments regarding the environmental review.

WriƩen comments on the NOP will be accepted unƟl 5:00 pm on August 6, 2024. Consider framing your comments with: “I think the EIR should evaluate [insert topic] or “I would like for the EIR to include an evaluaƟon of [insert topic].

The NOP is available as an aƩachment and on the project website at www.sancarlosnortheastplan.com. It includes specific instrucƟons on how to join the meeƟng in-person or virtually, and on how to provide comments.

Sincerely,
SajuƟ Haque, AICP | Sr. Management Analyst
Community Development Department | City of San Carlos
Email: [email protected] | Phone: (650) 802-4191

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1180
The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista
&
A.M.T.B. Inc.

Letter of Response
To whom it may concern:

It is our pride and privilege to be of service for any Native American Cultural Resource Monitoring, Consulting and/ or Sensitivity Training you may need or require. We take our Heritage and History seriously and are diligent about preserving as much of it as we can. Construction is a constant in the Bay Area and with that new discoveries are bound to happen. If you choose our services, we will gladly guide all personnel through proper procedures to safely protect and preserve: Culture, Heritage, and History.

It is highly recommended, if not previously done, to search through Sacred Lands Files (SLF) and California Historical Resource Information Systems (CHRIS) as well as reaching out to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) In order to determine whether you are working in a Cultural and/ or Historic sensitivity.

If you have received any positive cultural or historic sensitivity within 1 mile of the project area here are A.M.T.B Inc’s and Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista’s recommendations:
භ All Crews, Individuals and Personnel who will be moving any earth be Cultural Sensitivity Trained. භ A Qualified California Trained Archaeological Monitor is present during any earth movement. භ A Qualified Native American Monitor is present during any earth movement.

If further Consultation, Monitoring or Sensitivity Training is needed please feel free to contact A.M.T.B. Inc. or Myself Directly. A.M.T.B. Inc. 650 851 7747
Irenne Zwierlein
3030 Soda Bay Road, Lakeport
CA 95453
[email protected]
(650)851-7447

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1181
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista
&
AMTB Inc.
3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport, CA 95453
Our rates for 2024 are
$2.00 per hour.
4 hours minimum
Cancellations not 48 hours (about 2 days) prior will be charged as a 4-hour minimum. There is a round trip mileage charge if canceled after they have traveled to site.

Anything over 8 hours a day is charged as time and a half.

Weekends are charged at time and a half.

Holidays are charged at double the time.

For fiscal year (FY) 2024, standard per diem rate of $412. ($333. lodging, $79 M&IE).

M&IE Breakdown FY 2023
M&IE
Total1
Continental
Breakfast/
Breakfast2
Lunch2
Dinner2 Incidental
Expenses First & Last Day of Travel3
$79.00 $18.00 $20.00 $36.00 $5.00 $59.25
Beginning 2024, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car round trip (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be: $.67 cents per mile driven for business use or what the current federal standard is at the time.

Our Payment terms are 5 days from date on invoice.

Our Monitors are Members of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the A.M.T.B. Inc. at the below contact information.

Irenne Zwierlein
3030 Soda Bay Rd, Lakeport
CA 95453
[email protected]
(650)851-7747
Sincerely, Sincerely Sincerely,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1182

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
11/29/2023
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

PRODUCER CONTACT
NAME:

Allied Brokers PHONE (650) 328-1000 (A/C, No, Ext): FAX (A/C, No): (650) 324-1142
591 Lytton Avenue E-MAIL [email protected] ADDRESS:

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
Palo Alto CA 94301 INSURER A : Scottsdale Insurance Company 41297 INSURED INSURER B : United States Liability Insurance Company 25895 Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Consulting & Monitoring, LLC INSURER C :
330 Soda Bay Rd INSURER D :

INSURER E :

Lakeport CA 95453 INSURER F :

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSR

LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDLINSD SUBRWVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF (MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS A
ݶCOMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CPS7829150 07/09/2023 07/09/2024
EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000
CLAIMS-MADE ݶOCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ 100,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 ݶ PROPOLICY JECT LOC
OTHER:

PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 1,000,000
$
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $
OWNED

AUTOS ONLY
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY

SCHEDULED
AUTOS

NON-OWNED

AUTOS ONLY
BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $
PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $
$

UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
DED RETENTION $ $

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
N / A
PER

STATUTE OTH- ER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $
B Professional Liability SP1573468C 06/21/2023 06/21/2024 Each Claim
Aggregate
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) Proof of Coverage

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

ACORD®
~ I
I
I I I
Fl LJ LJ
-- - - - - -
- H
I I
I I I
□
IV1~Wcd~ I

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1183

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
July 17, 2024
Lisa Porras
Planning Manager
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos. CA 94070
[email protected]
RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN CARLOS NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DATED JULY 2, 2024, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER2024070063
Dear Lisa Porras,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan (NEASP). The purpose of the NEASP 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, residents, and the overall community. NEASP would be built out over an approximate 20-year period and would allow for a net increase of 1,890 residential units (no residential units exist within the Plan area currently), as well as an increase in the net square footage of existing land uses within the Plan area. A new street segment from Quarry Road to Bragato Road would be implemented as part of the NEASP. Additionally, the NEASP would include improvements to the existing transportation network, such as a pedestrian/bicycle connection to Belmont Creek from e
Yana Garcia
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.

Director
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
Gavin Newsom
Governor

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1184
Lisa Porras
July 17, 2024