San Carlos City Council
June 8, 2026

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.

After reviewing the project, DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. The proposed project encompasses multiple active and nonactive mitigation and clean-up sites where DTSC has conducted oversight that may be impacted as a result of this project. This may restrict what construction activities are permissible in the proposed project areas in order to avoid any impacts to human health and the environment.

2. Due to the broad scope of the project, DTSC is unable to determine the locations of the proposed sites, whether they are listed as having documented contamination, land use restrictions, or whether there is the potential for the sites to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, DTSC recommends providing further information on the proposed project and areas that may fall under DTSC's oversight within future environmental documents. Once received, DTSC may provide additional comments on future environmental documents as further information becomes available. Please review the project area in EnviroStor, DTSC’s public-facing database.

3. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual.

Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1185
Lisa Porras
July 17, 2024

suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

4. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's PEA Guidance Manual
DTSC believes the City of San Carlos must address these comments to determine if any significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will occur and, if necessary, avoid significant impacts under CEQA. DTSC recommends the department connect with our unit if any hazardous waste projects managed or overseen by DTSC are discovered.

Please refer to the City of San Carlos EnviroStor Map for additional information about the areas of potential contamination. If further concerns or impacts surface in light of the any forthcoming environmental documents, DTSC reserves the right to provide applicable comments at that time
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP of a DEIR for the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1186
Lisa Porras
July 17, 2024

Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1187
From: Jeremy Levine <[email protected]>
Date: July 25, 2024 at 12:13:54PM PDT
To: AdvancePlanning <[email protected]> Cc: Lisa Porras <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Northeast Area Specific Plan EIR Scoping Good afternoon San Carlos City Council and Staff,
I am writing on behalf of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County. HLC works with communities and their leaders to produce and preserve quality affordable homes.

To that end, we support the NE Area Specific Plan's efforts to add new residential uses to the area. However, the plan includes a massive discrepancy between the potential for new jobs and new homes. According to the EIR Notice of Preparation, the specific plan EIR scope anticipates approximately three times as many jobs as housing units in the specific plan.

By planning for more jobs than housing, the NE Area Specific Plan risks substantially contributing to San Carlos's housing shortage and causing further displacement of lowerincome residents throughout the city. In order to adequately support the housing needs of all residents, present and future, HLC recommends the following changes:
x Increase the allowable heights of new development in the residential mixed use sub area to at the very least match the bonus heights in the industrial sub areas. Use the city's highest allowable density metric or eliminate density metrics entirely within the subareas (building size will still be regulated by height limits, Floor Area Ratios, maximum lot coverage requirements, and other zoning constraints.)
x Remove discrepancies between the residential mixed use sub areas in favor of the higher allowable heights and densities.
x Allow residential uses in the light industrial sub areas equivalent to those in the exclusively residential areas.
x Plan for a minimum ratio of housing to jobs of 1:1.5, ideally more. We prefer increasing the projected number of housing units rather than decreasing the number of jobs.

With the recent update of its housing element, San Carlos demonstrated its commitment to meeting the housing needs of all. The city can continue to demonstrate its commitment to housing affordability by revising the scope of its NE Area Specific Plan EIR to actually deliver housing adequate to meet job growth.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
(925) 451-4620

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1188
1 July 31, 2024
Attn: Advance Planning, City of San Carlos Planning Department Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan
Dear Advance Planning,
The Greater East San Carlos (GESC) Board would like to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for San Carlos’ Northeast Area Specific Plan. We think the EIR should include an evaluation of the following topics:
1) Connecting the Neighborhoods
The EIR should evaluate proposed connections to and from the NE GESC Neighborhood. Should we maintain zero access to these neighborhoods other than Old County Road or should we consider direct access through Fairfield Drive or a new walking access point to Industrial Road We would like an assessment on the pros and cons, including public safety (i.e. potential increase for robberies and mitigations). 2) Cleaning the Toxic Legacy in the Unnamed Creek
The EIR should evaluate the environmental impacts of toxics (i.e. high levels of PCBs) from Delta Star and other facilities east of Industrial Road in the unnamed drainage between the PG&E substation and Palo Alto Medical Foundation. This should include an in-depth investigation of any necessary top soil removal and also an analysis of ground water quality impact and recommended mitigations. 3) Flood Zones
The Northeast Area has significant flooding issues adjacent to Belmont Creek, an unnamed located between the PG&E substation and Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the eastern portion of the property (previously the San Francisco Bay) that need to be comprehensively addressed. Proposed new construction of high density biolabs, residential uses, or underground parking structures in and adjacent to biologically sensitive areas could be impacted. The EIR should require perennial riparian and wetland setbacks to anticipate climate and sea level rise changes to riparian and flood plain areas.
4) Cleaning Up Former Land Uses With Toxic Legacy Impacting Surface and Groundwater
The City is well aware of the GESC Board’s prior communications about the toxic legacy from past land uses in this area with a high-water table and flood zone issues. The EIR should consider mitigations of past land uses with toxic legacies requiring

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1189
2 comprehensive clean up to protect groundwater and impacts to the San Francisco Bay.

We are not in support of capping toxic legacies without comprehensive remediation. 5) Evaluate Phased Infrastructure Needs
The EIR should comprehensively assess needed phased infrastructure improvements to facilitate the proposed development in the Northeast Pla, and consider mitigations. 6) Community Serving Use Anticipated
A community serving use is anticipated off of Old County Road north of Talyor Street. A survey of the GESC residents’ desires and needs is warranted. The EIR should identify how it will benefit the GESC residential community, which will be accessible from improved sidewalks (continuing East Side Connect) on Old County Road. 7) Air Quality Concerns
Prior to the City Council adopting a policy opposed to Bio-Safety Labs 3 and 4 during the summer of 2023 a number of biotech safety labs were opposed to improving solar on their roofs and asked the Planning Commission to place smokestacks on their roofs to anticipate future Biosafety labs 3 and 4. We know the Biotech industry will wait for a change in the City Council to adopt a more favorable approach to Biosafety labs 3 and 4, which the GESC neighborhood adamantly opposes because they would be dangerous to public health safety and welfare and our homes would be the closest in proximity to these industries. The Bay Area Air Quality District does not regulate air quality from private biotech labs adequately, and until they do the City should not be facilitating poor future air quality associated with these developments. The EIR should evaluate the safety elements needed to facilitate these developments while still requiring these new developments to have solar and be energy independent per other requirements for them to be electrified, and not on natural gas. 8) Anticipating Traffic Impacts
The EIR should evaluate all traffic impacts from the proposed developments anticipated by the Northeast Plan. The Holly Street overpass improvements have already been delayed 5 years, and a number of developments are also anticipated in the Eastside Innovation Plan. We would like the EIR to evaluate the need for a potential northbound lane onto Highway 101 to anticipate the development in this NE area. We know of many examples of on traffic on ramps in closer proximity than Harbor and Holly in the Bay Area, and do not believe the distance should be an obstacle when anticipating the significant increase traffic from changes is use and density anticipated by the Specific Plan. It takes 7 years to plan for these types of improvements to be made and the time for planning is now with the City of Belmont and Caltrans.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1190
3 9) Safe Crossings of Holly at Old County Road, and El Camino Real The EIR should evaluate increased pedestrian, bicycle, and ADA traffic over Holly Street at Old County Road and El Camino Real as a result of proposed development in the Northeast Area. Besides evaluating at grade solutions, the EIR should also consider whether there is a need for a raised walkway to go over Holly Street and possibly over the entire berm for public safety. This should include the possible colocation of businesses and or services along the walkway similar to how these walkways work in Europe and Asia. We are very concerned about the hazards of crossing Holly Street at Old County Road and El Camino Real today and what additional volumes of traffic can mean for public safety. 10) Continuing Eastside Connect North
The EIR should continue Eastside Connect from its existing endpoint at Northwood all the way down Old County Road to Quarry creating a viable pedestrian and bike friendly corridor on the East Side of Old County Road. This could include taking some land back from GW Williams along Old County Road to allow for additional safety away from the OCR thoroughfare similar to the undulating pathways in front of the Alexandria Biotech campus recently built on Industrial Road in SE GESC area. 11) Funding enhanced pedestrian and connectivity solutions for the entire NE GESC area
The EIR should look at the use of additional services and impact fees to be used for enhanced pedestrian and connectivity solutions for the entire NE GESC area. 12) Assessing Impact of the Large Residential on Residents of Northwood and Fairfield
We are concerned that the residents along Northwood and Fairfield are unaware of the size of the residential development proposed behind their homes, and would like there to be an evaluation of the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the residents in the EIR, and suggested mitigations.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1191
4 13) How Should the Northeast Area be Represented
The EIR should evaluate whether this new neighborhood should join the GESC or remain a discrete neighborhood with different interests. The more we can align the interests of the new neighborhood with the old, especially since new residential is being added, the better this would be for everyone, which could include neighborhood governance. We would be glad to discuss this issue further with the EIR consultants.

Sincerely,
Sam Herzberg and Jennifer Rosse, GESC Co-Presidents
CC: GESC Board Members – Scot Marsters, Dimitri Vandellos, Ben Fuller, Jeff Maley, Caroline Tudor, Daniel Zizmor, Paul Magginetti

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1192
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 2

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
:ƵůLJϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϰ
ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϲϬϬ
ůŵ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐ͕͘ϵϰϬϳϬ
ƚƚŶ͗>ŝƐĂWŽƌƌĂƐ
ůƉŽƌƌĂƐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶĐĂƌůŽƐ͘ŽƌŐ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗EKWĨŽƌ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐE
ƌĞĂ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶ
/Z
dŚĞ^ŝĞƌƌĂůƵď>ŽŵĂWƌŝĞƚĂŚĂƉƚĞƌ͛Ɛ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ;^>hͿ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞƐŽŶƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJĂŶĚůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝƐƐƵĞƐŝŶ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĂŶĚ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂŽƵŶƚŝĞƐ͘ tĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
/ZƵŶĚĞƌΗ>ĂŶĚhƐĞΗǁŝůůĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞWůĂŶǁŝůůŚĂǀĞŽŶ ƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ:ŽďƐͬ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐďĂůĂŶĐĞŝŶ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐ͕ďƵƚǁĞĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŐŽĂůŽĨƚŚŝƐ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞŵŽƌĞĐůĞĂƌůLJƐƚĂƚĞĚ͘
ϭ͘
ǀĞƌLJϭD^&ŽĨŶĞǁďŝŽƚĞĐŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďƌŝŶŐϯ͕ϬϬϬϭ ŽƌŵŽƌĞŶĞǁũŽďƐ ŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͘
Ϯ͘ dŚĞƐĞŶĞǁũŽďƐǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĂŶĞĞĚĨŽƌϭ͕ϲϬϬͲ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬϮ ŽƌŵŽƌĞŶĞǁŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƚƐƚŽŚŽƵƐĞƚŚĞƐĞŶĞǁĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞũŽďƐͬŚŽƵƐŝŶŐďĂůĂŶĐĞ͘ ϯ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚϰ͕ϱϬϴ͕ϬϬϬ^&ŽĨŶĞǁďŝŽƚĞĐŚŽƌŽĨĨŝĐĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞE WůĂŶ
ĐŽƵůĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƵƉƚŽϭϱ͕ϬϬϬũŽďƐϭ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĞĞĚĨŽƌďĞƚǁĞĞŶϳ͕ϱϬϬͲ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬϮ ŶĞǁ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂŶĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞũŽďƐͬŚŽƵƐŝŶŐďĂůĂŶĐĞ͕LJĞƚƚŚĞWůĂŶŽŶůLJ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌƵƉƚŽϭ͕ϴϵϬŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͘
ϰ͘ ĚĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚE
ƌĞĂũŽďƐƚŽƚŚŽƐĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŶĞǁ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƐƚ^ŝĚĞ/ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕ŝƚŝƐĐůĞĂƌƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŶĞǁ ϭ ZƵůĞŽĨƚŚƵŵď͗ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞϯϬϬ^&ƉĞƌũŽďŝŶŝŽƚĞĐŚͬZΘͲ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͗ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘njŝƉƉŝĂ͘ĐŽŵͬĂĚǀŝĐĞͬŚŽǁͲ ŵƵĐŚͲŽĨĨŝĐĞͲƐƉĂĐĞͲƉĞƌͲĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞͬ
Ϯ ZƵůĞŽĨƚŚƵŵď͗ϭ͘ϱƚŽϮ͘ϬũŽďƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚͲ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͗ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͲŽƌŐͲƵƉůŽĂĚĞĚͲ ŵĞĚŝĂ͘Ɛϯ͘ĂŵĂnjŽŶĂǁƐ͘ĐŽŵͬƉƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͬĚŽǁŶůŽĂĚͺƉĚĨͬW^ͲZĞƉŽƌƚͲϱϭϲ͘ƉĚĨ͕dĂďůĞϰ

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1193
2 of 2 Page sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 ϱϵϱƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ũŽďƐŝŶƚŚĞŶĞdžƚϮϬLJĞĂƌƐǁŝůůĨĂƌĞdžĐĞĞĚƚŚĞůĂƚĞƐƚŐŽĂůŽĨϯ͕ ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƉƵƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJŽĨ ĐŝƚLJΖƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚ͘
͕ďƵƚŽŶůLJĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞƚŚĞ dŚŝƐ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂŶŽǀĞƌĂůůďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŽ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐ ǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶͲ ŽǀĞƌĂůůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐŚŽƌƚĨĂůůŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĂŶĚŽŶƚŚĞƉĞŶŝŶƐƵůĂ͘/ƚ ƐǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŚĂƌŵĨƵů ĐŽŵŵƵƚŝŶŐ͕ĂŝƌĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ'ƌĞĞŶŚŽƵƐĞ'ĂƐĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ƚŽƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŝŶŚĞƌĞŶƚůLJƵŶƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ͘
ŝŐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ
/Z dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶ:ŽďƐͬ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐďĂůĂŶĐĞŵƵƐƚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂŶĚŵŝƚ ĂŶĚŶŽƚŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞĚĂƐĂŶΗƵŶĂǀŽŝĚĂďůĞŝŵƉĂĐƚΗ͘
ƵƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞ tĞĐůŽƐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚ^ĂŶĂƌůŽƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂƐĞƌŝŽ ŝƉĂƚĞ͘ ůĐŽŵĞƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉĂƌƚŝĐ ƉƌŽďĂďůĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂŶĚǁĞǁŽƵůĚǁĞ 
ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJzŽƵƌƐ͕
Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
ŚĂƉƚĞƌ Đ͗:ĂŵĞƐ
ŐŐĞƌƐ͕
džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕^ŝĞƌƌĂůƵď>ŽŵĂWƌŝĞƚĂ

  
  
-·~t~·

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1194
Daniel C. Summerlin
President
P (540) 983-7546 | F (540) 983-7711
[email protected]
Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black PLC
10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1800
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
August 5, 2024
VIA EMAIL [email protected]
City of San Carlos, Planning Division
Attn: Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
600 Elm Street
San Carlos California 94070-3085
Re: Delta Star, Inc.

Dear Ms. Porras:

This firm represents Delta Star and its interest arising from the development of the Northeast Area Specific Plan by the City of San Carlos (“City”). Delta Star requests that this letter be accepted as a written comment on the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

As you are aware, Delta Star is a significant employer and taxpayer in the City for over 60 years. While Delta Star is supportive of the City’s efforts to create more housing, the NOP divided the targeted area into three types of Light Industrial sub areas with varying height limitations depending on your sub area. According to the NOP Delta Star is currently in Light Industrial Sub Area 3 with a Base Height Assumption of 75 feet and a Bonus Height Permitted of 75 feet. These height limitations are less than half allowed the other two sub area’s and potentially limits Delta Star’s ability to compete in its industry and significantly impairs Delta Star’s property rights by limiting future development and value of its property.

Delta Star is a global leader in the design and manufacturing of electrical transformers and substations. The transformer industry is incredibly competitive and one that requires constant innovation to compete. Because the products made by Delta Star are limited, in part, by the height of cranes and the roof, vertical expansion of facilities to improve the manufacturing and assembling process has become standard in the industry and one that Delta Star is evaluating. The industry is moving to larger units, which might require Delta Star to raise the roof to manufacture these units. Finally, Delta Star is also looking at advanced manufacturing equipment which requires a taller building so it can use this technology since doing underground pits of 10-15 ft is not an alternative and could be much more expensive. Being restricted to a maximum of 150 feet presents potential barriers to Delta Star’s ability compete and retain its place as a global leader.
..AAI WoodsRogers

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1195
It addition to the competitive disadvantage, being limited to a maximum of 75 or 150 feet while adjacent parcels are able to build to 230 or 255 feet will suppress the future value of the The adjacent properties with up to an additional 180 Delta Star’s property in the event of a sale. feet in height are going to be significantly more valuable than Delta Star’s property to potential buyers. Additionally, the reasoning behind such a drastic difference in height limitations is difficult to ascertain given the proximity of Sub Area 1 and 2 to Sub Area 3. This is particularly true of Sub Area 2 that is contiguous to Delta Star’s property.

For the foregoing reasons, Delta Star respectfully requests that the City of San Carlos reconsider the designation of its property as Sub Area 3 and assign it Sub Area 1 or 2. We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC
Daniel C. Summerlin
President
DCS:mm
nro

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1196
Leslie Wambach-Pacalin
151 Corona Way
Portola Valley, CA 94028
for
National Alliance on Mental Illness - San Mateo County Chapter (NAMI-SMC) Advocacy Committee
August 5, 2024
Planning & Transportation Commission
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
RE: Scoping meeting for San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) EIR Dear Commissioners and City Staff,
I’m unfortunately unable to attend Monday night’s public meeting, so am writing this letter instead. As a former San Carlos Planning Commissioner, retired Architect & Planner, and an Advocacy spokesperson for NAMI-SMC, I am submitting these comments for the EIR scoping process regarding the NEASP. It is NAMI-SMC’s goal to advocate for ‘best practices’ in mental health policy and to represent the mental health interests of all residents throughout San Mateo County. NAMI is the largest grassroots mental health education & advocacy organization in the country, whose mission is to provide education, support, and advocacy to improve the lives of all people living with mental health conditions and their families.

The NEASP project area is fortunate to be the home of one of the most valuable mental health support centers in our county: California Clubhouse, at 210 Industrial Road #102, one of only three such centers in all of northern California. The heart of the success experienced by clubhouses like this one, which are sanctioned by the organization Clubhouse International, is helping people with serious mental Illness stay out of hospitals while achieving social, financial, educational, and vocational goals — in sum leading full and productive lives. California Clubhouse serves as a vital mental health community hub.

Free and and open to all county residents, it has a strong membership and is very well located for its purpose with easy access to public transportation. Many individuals living with a serious mental illness rely on public transportation.

To appreciate the value of California Clubhouse is to understand how nonexistent such programs were as recently as only eight years ago, leaving many of our most vulnerable community members without any sense of community, belonging, purpose, or peer support.

In this light, we at NAMI-SMC think the EIR for the NEASP should evaluate the importance of NOT DISPLACING, but instead ENHANCING this vital community resource. This could be achieved either by maintaining it’s current location or planning for a new enhanced center within the NEASP project area as part of a larger redevelopment project. However, it is imperative that Clubhouse activities be allowed to continue uninterrupted at all times.

Additionally, the NEASP calls for the creation of 1,890 new housing units, for roughly 3,700 new residents. The Center for Disease Control states that Serious Mental Illness (SMI) has a 1 in 25 prevalence in the general population, and carries the potential for grave disability if not properly treated.

This means that as many as 148 individuals in this new residential sector are likely to live with an SMI.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1197
You may already be aware that Permanent Supportive Housing has been identified as an essential component of housing stock more broadly. In fact, most intensive recovery programs for individuals living with an SMI have adopted a ‘housing first’ strategy to better support this vulnerable group of folks.

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of supply county-wide of this specialized type of housing.

What is Permanent Supportive Housing?
Permanent Supportive Housing consists of a cluster of small apartment and studio units accompanied by a resident on-site behavioral health trained community manager, several small caseworker/client meeting rooms, supported employment & educational work space, and a shared group area and/or kitchen space.This relatively simple combination of individual housing units and onsite supports which encourage healthy community engagement has proven to be the best model for helping people living with SMI thrive in recovery and meaningfully contribute to the community around them.

Consequently, and given these converging factors:
- the creation of a sizable number of new housing units, - the severe shortage of Permanent Supportive Housing county-wide, - the proximity of this new housing to California Clubhouse (a significant mental health community hub),
We at NAMI-SMC request that the EIR for the NEASP evaluate what we see as an imperative: that a defined and population-appropriate number of Permanent Supportive Housing units (with associated support facilities) be required as part of the total number of new housing units created within the NEASP project area.

We look forward to further contributing to this important planning process.

Thank you for your consideration of our input.

Sincerely,
Leslie Wambach-Pacalin
___________________
Advocacy Committee

NAMI-SMC
1730 S Amphlet Blvd, Suite 308
San Mateo, CA 94402
Please address any correspondence to:
[email protected]
or
151 Corona Way
Portola Valley, CA 94028

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1198


289 CRESTVIEW DRIVE, SAN CARLOS, CA. 94070 - TEL: (650) 631-8614 August 6, 2024
City of San Carlos Planning Division
Attn: Lisa Porras
[email protected]
Subject: San Carlos NE Area Specific Plan EIR
At last night's Planning Commission meeting, the one EIR subject that was not openly discussed is the most critical of them all - the jobs / housing imbalance that will result if this Plan is approved. This is the elephant in the room and is not being addressed.

The staff report said the Plan includes up to 1,890 units of new housing in the area, but also encourages R&D development that could produce up to 13,800 new jobs.

In what universe is a jobs / housing ratio of 7.3:1 a sustainable ratio? San Carlos is becoming one of the worst offenders in the region in exacerbating the existing regional jobs / housing shortfall and city leaders don't seem to care.

It seemed clear to me that the consultants were laying the ground work to declare the lack of a balanced jobs / housing ratio to be "A Significant Unavoidable Impact" and that the city council will declare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to approve the Plan.

And don't tell me that meeting RHNA will solve the problem. It won't come close.

So much for San Carlos declaring itself a sustainable city. It seems that tax income is a far greater consideration that the welfare of the residents.

DAVID CRABBE ARCHITECT
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIOR DESIGN

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1199



So, what should be included in the EIR? A full and realistic analysis of the social and environmental impacts of a future 7.3 / 1.0 jobs / housing ratio if this current Plan is fully implemented and a balanced explanation as to why it should not be rejected due to this "Significant Unavoidable Impact", or a realistic approach for how it can be mitigated.

I believe the consultants are requires to respond to all letters submitted during the NOP process and I look forward to their response.

David Crabbe
cc Al Savay, Jeff Maltbie

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1200



10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1201
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 6, 2024 SCH #: 2024070063
GTS #: 04-SM-2024-00592
GTS ID: 33230
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/VAR/VAR
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
City of San Carlos
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070-3085
Re: San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan ɔ Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Lisa Porras:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP).

The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2024 NOP.

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

Project Understanding
The proposed project is to develop the NEASP, which will guide new development within the approximately 145-acre Plan area. The NEASP would be built out over an approximate 20-year period and would allow for a net increase of 1,890 residential units in the Plan area, where no residential units currently exist, as well as increase the net square footage of existing non-residential land uses. The Plan also proposes multimodal transportation improvements. The Plan area is located between U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101) and State Route 82 (SR-82) and is bound by U.S. 101 on its eastern side.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• •
tilltrans·

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1202
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

If the project meets the screening criteria established in the City’s adopted VMT policy to be presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact and exempt from detailed VMT analysis, please provide justification to support the exempt status in alignment with the City’s VMT policy. Projects that do not meet the screening criteria should include a detailed VMT analysis in the DEIR.

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

The Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan identifies SR-82 as a high-priority area for pedestrian facility improvements and highlights the intersections of SR-82/Oak St and SR-82/5th Ave, as well as the Holly St and U.S. 101 overcrossing, all located near the project site, as in need of crossing improvements. Please consider incorporating higher visibility striping for any crosswalks planned within the project limits and installing “YIELD TO PEDS” signs as needed within the project limits.

The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan identifies the SR-82/Holly St intersection as a high-priority area for bicycle crossing improvements. Please consider offering both short-term bicycle parking and long-term secure bike storage for the users of the new development facilities.

Please also review and include reference to the nearby Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) project for the U.S. 101 and Holly St Interchange Access Improvements under the U.S. 101 South Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020). The project would convert existing full cloverleaf ramp configurations to a partial cloverleaf design by eliminating two of the existing loop off-ramps of the interchange, realign the diagonal on- and off-ramps into signalized T-intersections with local streets, and construct a new pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing on the south side of the Holly St interchange.

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1203
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Construction-Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State ROW from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).

Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.

Additionally, please note the following three Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects within the vicinity of the project site that may pose a potential construction conflict. For future project coordination, please contact Rommel Pardo, Senior Project Manager of Program Project Management for San Mateo County at [email protected].
x Project 04-2J73A – pavement rehabilitation, upgrade guardrails, and bio monitoring along U.S. 101 near Cordilleras Creek Bridge. x Project 04-4W730 – Capital Maintenance (CAPM) Roadway Rehabilitation on SR-82 in San Mateo from 43rd Ave to Santa Inez Ave.
x Project 04-1Q582 – CAPM Roadway Rehabilitation on U.S. 101 from the Santa Clara/San Mateo County line to South Airport Blvd.

Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning
Transportation and housing are integrally connected. The NEASP development process provides a mechanism to reflect current transportation and land use policy and adopt efficient land-use strategies such as transit-oriented, infill and mixed-use developments that can potentially reduce vehicle miles traveled and address climate change.

Please review and include the reference to the current California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR. CTP 2050 envisions that the majority of new housing located near existing housing, jobs, and transit, and in close proximity to one another will reduce vehicle travel and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and be accessible and affordable for all Californians, including disadvantaged and low-income communities.

The location, density, and affordability of future housing will dictate much of our future travel patterns, and our ability to achieve the vision outlined in CTP 2050. Caltrans encourages the City to consider and explore the potential of excess state-owned property for affordable housing development, per Executive Order N-06-19.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1204
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the DEIR that should demonstrate how the future housing development patterns align with the City’s adopted VMT policies. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through efficient and equitable land use planning and policies. The City should also continue to coordinate with Caltrans to identify and implement necessary network improvements and impact mitigation.

Aeronautics
One of the goals of the Caltrans Aeronautics Program, is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions or their equivalent (ALUC), to understand and comply with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq.

The proposed project is in Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), with a portion of the Project site in Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) of the San Carlos Airport, established by the San Mateo County ALUC pursuant to Section 21675(c). Therefore, the proposed Project shall adhere to the safety and land use criteria and restrictions defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) formed by the ALUC pursuant to the PUC Section 21674 and Section 21676 and may be subject to review authority by the ALUC.

A portion of the project site is also in the 60 decibel (dB) community noise level contour (CNEL) of the Future Conditions (2035) Aircraft Noise Contours for the San Carlos Airport per the ALUCP. Development in this area would be subject to the noise compatibility policies of the ALUCP. Of note, multi-family residential development in the 60 dB CNEL contour is conditionally compatible and must be capable of attenuating exterior noise levels to an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB or lower.

PUC Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards near airports. Structures should not be at a height that will result in penetration of the airport imaginary surfaces. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) may be required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). For further information or a copy of Form 7460- 1, please refer to the FAA website (link).

Lastly, in accordance with PUC Section 21676 et seq., prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the ALUC, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. If the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1205
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” These comments reflect the areas of review by Caltrans Aeronautics with respect to airport-related noise, safety, and land use planning issues. Caltrans Aeronautics appreciates the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact [email protected].

Hydrology
Please ensure that any increase in storm water runoff to State Drainage Systems or Facilities be treated, contained on project site, and metered to preconstruction levels.

Any floodplain impacts must be documented and mitigated.

The Office of Hydraulics would like to ensure that the discharge from new development will not impact the existing drainage systems at U.S. 101 and SR-82 during the raining season and that no surface flow will get into the roadside ditches between the development area and southbound U.S. 101 as well as SR-82. For future design phase review, please submit plan views, profiles, cross-sections, details of all drainage facilities, and hydrologic calculations showing before and after conditions at this location.

Water Quality
Please include the following information in the Hydrology and Water Quality section as suggested by the Office of Water Quality:

This Plan (project) conforms to all applicable water quality regulations and/or permit requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), including but not limited to, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide Stormwater Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for State of California Department of Transportation (Order No. 2022-0033-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and any subsequent revisions and/or additional requirements at the time of construction to mitigate temporary and permanent Water Quality impacts.

The Plan (project) is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2), which is responsible for implementation of State and Federal laws and regulations for water quality protection & in the San Mateo County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Area. Laurel Creek & San Francisco Bay, Lower are the nearest 2020-2022 303(d List receiving waterbodies.

The job location “between Ralston Avenue & Holly Street on U.S. Route 101” is within “Moderate to High 2022 Trash Generation Rating Area” and will address Region 2’s trash requirements.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1206
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Climate Change/Sea Level Rise
In the 2020 Caltrans District 4 Adaptation Priorities Report (link), U.S. 101 adjacent to the project location is identified as a high-priority Caltrans asset vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge, and climate change impacts, including increased precipitation. Caltrans would like to be included in discussions, to stay informed as Caltrans is interested in engaging in multi-agency collaboration early and often, to find multi-benefit solutions that protect vulnerable shorelines, communities, infrastructure, and the environment.

Please ensure that Caltrans remains informed about the various climate stressors affecting the project location, and the ongoing development and implementation of adaptation and resilience initiatives. Of particular concern to Caltrans is Belmont Creek, which has recently experienced localized flooding. Since the project site is situated between Caltrans Right-of-Way (ROW) on SR-82 and U.S. 101, Caltrans looks forward to collaborating with entities such as One Shoreline and the City to develop adaptation and resilience measures for Belmont Creek. Additionally, please provide updates to Caltrans on any efforts in constructing new culverts or other assets aimed at maintaining hydrological quality and managing stormwater effectively.

For any questions or concerns within District 4’s geographical boundaries, please contact the Caltrans Bay Area Climate Change Planning Coordinators at [email protected] and [email protected].

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of San Carlos is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

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

Equity and Public Engagement
We will achieve equity when everyone has access to what they need to thrive no matter their race, socioeconomic status, identity, where they live, or how they travel.

Caltrans is committed to advancing equity and livability in all communities. We look forward to collaborating with the City to prioritize projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1207
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Caltrans encourages the City to foster meaningful, equitable and ongoing public engagement in the NEASP development process to ensure future transportation decisions and investments reflect community interests and values. The public engagement process should include community-sensitive and equity-focused approaches seeking out the needs of individuals from underserved, Tribal, and lowincome communities, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement.

The Office of Encroachment Permit requires 100% complete design plans and supporting documents to review and circulate the permit application package. To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). Please note that the checklist TR-0416 is used to determine the appropriate Caltrans review process for encroachment projects. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Luana Chen, Transportation Planner, via [email protected].

For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].

Sincerely,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1208
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
August 6, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”

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

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1209

SAN CARLOS NORTHEAST

AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AIR

QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE

GAS ASSESSMENT
San Carlos, California
February 28, 2025
Revised April 4, 2025
Prepared for:

Natalie Noyes
Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:

James A. Reyff
Jordyn Bauer
Casey Divine
429 E. Cotati Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project: 23-003
IWNGWORTH&RooKIN,INC.
/Ill• Acoustics • Air Quality •1111

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1210
1 INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) located in San Carlos, California. The NEASP would allow for increased development of new residential uses in addition to industrial, retail, and office uses.

The site is currently developed with light industrial, office, auto, and hospital and vet uses, with surface parking lots adjacent to each property. This report includes a summary of applicable air quality and GHG regulations and analyzes potential air quality and GHG impacts associated with the proposed NEASP.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Specific Plan area comprises approximately 145 acres of properties that includes the area north of Holly Street to Belmont Creek, and between Highway 101 and Old County Road. The Plan Area is bordered by industrial and commercial uses as well as single-family neighborhoods. Figure 1 shows the NEASP location.

Figure 1. San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Location The proposed NEASP provides a vision and planning framework for future growth and development within the Plan area. The Plan provides a comprehensive vision for the Plan Area along with goals, policies, strategies and development standards to guide the Plan Area’s future growth in an equitable manner than benefits the community. The NEASP would be built out over ,;
,;
,;
,;
,;
/
,; ~
/ .,. ,;
' /
Legend
Study Area
____ ....::_Sa~n_i_ LC,arlos City Limit
/
/ ' / ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ,,
' /
'
N
A

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1211
2 an approximately 20-year period and would include up to 1,890 residential units (no residential units currently exist within the Plan area), in addition to industrial, commercial office, and retail uses. Additionally, the NEASP would reduce the existing commercial office, animal hospital, and warehouse and light industrial space.

AIR POLLUTANTS AND CONTAMINANTS
Air pollutants are governed by multiple federal and state standards to regulate and mitigate health impacts. At the federal level, there are six criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (PM: PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). California sets standards, similar to the NAAQS as California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Health effects of the primary criteria pollutants (i.e., the NAAQS) and their potential sources are described below and summarized in Table 1. Note that California includes pollutants or contaminants that are specific to certain industries and not associated with this project. These include hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride.

Ozone

Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX).

The main sources of ROG and NOX, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. In the Bay Area, automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, shortness of breath, and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. While CO transport is limited, it disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions.

However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, hospital patients, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease. Very high levels of CO can be fatal.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1212
3 Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide is a reddish-brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contribute to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. On January 22, 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened the health-based NAAQS for NO2.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels in the region. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight.

Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles are those that are larger than 2.5 microns but smaller than 10 microns (PM10).

PM2.5 refers to fine suspended particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less that is not readily filtered out by the lungs. Nitrates, sulfates, dust, and combustion particulates are major components of PM10 and PM2.5. These small particles can be directly emitted into the atmosphere as by-products of fuel combustion, through abrasion, such as tire or brake lining wear, or through fugitive dust (wind or mechanical erosion of soil). They can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Particulates may transport carcinogens and other toxic compounds that adhere to the particle surfaces and can enter the human body through the lungs.

Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions.

The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufactures.

Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1213
4 Table 1. Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
x Incomplete combustion of fuels
and other carbon-containing
substances, such as motor exhaust.
x Natural events, such as
decomposition of organic matter.
x Reduced tolerance for exercise.
x Impairment of mental function.
x Impairment of fetal development.
x Death at high levels of exposure.
x Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
x Motor vehicle exhaust.
x High temperature stationary
combustion.
x Atmospheric reactions.
x Aggravation of respiratory illness.
x Reduced visibility.
x Reduced plant growth.
x Formation of acid rain.

Ozone
(O3)
x Atmospheric reaction of organic
gases with nitrogen oxides in
sunlight.
x Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
x Irritation of eyes.
x Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
x Plant leaf injury.

Lead
(Pb)
x Contaminated soil. x Impairment of blood functions and nerve construction. x Behavioral and hearing problems in children.

Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5 and
PM10)
x Stationary combustion of solid
fuels.
x Construction activities.
x Industrial processes.
x Atmospheric chemical reactions.
x Reduced lung function.
x Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.
x Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory
diseases.
x Increased cough and chest discomfort.
x Soiling.
x Reduced visibility.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
x Combustion of sulfur-containing
fossil fuels.
x Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal
ores.
x Industrial processes.
x Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
x Reduced lung function.
x Irritation of eyes.
x Reduced visibility.
x Plant injury.
x Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc.

Toxic Air
Contaminants
x Cars and trucks, especially diesels.
x Industrial sources such as chrome
platers.
x Neighborhood businesses such as
dry cleaners and service stations.
x Building materials and product.
x Cancer.
x Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation.
x Neurological and reproductive disorders.

Source: CARB, 2009. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution and Health, see:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs1/fs1.htm accessed May 1, 2018 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Some examples of TACs include benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1214
5 High-volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truck stops) were identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, and high-volume transit centers. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.

Local Climate and Air Quality
Air quality is a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollution. Air quality is the balance of the natural dispersal capacity of the atmosphere and emissions of air pollutants from human uses of the environment. Climate and topography are major influences on air quality.

Climate and Meteorology
During the summer, mostly clear skies result in mild to warm daytime temperatures and cool nights in the San Francisco Peninsula. Winter temperatures are mild, except for very cool but generally frost-less mornings. Further inland where the moderating effect of the bay is not as strong, temperature extremes are greater. Rainfall amounts are modest, ranging from 13 inches in the lowlands to over 20 inches in the hills. Wind patterns are influenced by local terrain, with a westnorthwesterly breeze in response to the sea breeze infiltrating San Francisco Bay typically developing during the daytime1
. Winds are usually stronger in the spring and summer. Southerly winds experienced occasionally in late fall and winter and are usually associated with rainfall events. Winds from easterly directions are rare, occurring about 5 percent of the time, while winds with westerly components occur about 40 percent of the time. Calm winds, defined as less than 2 miles per hour, occur about 23 percent of the time. Rainfall amounts are modest, ranging from 13 inches in the lowlands to 20 inches in the hills.

Air Pollution Potential
Ozone and fine particle pollution, or PM2.5, are the major regional air pollutants of concern in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ozone is primarily a problem in the summer, and fine particle pollution in the winter. A cool marine air usually reaches across San Mateo County in summer. Ozone frequently forms on hot summer days when the prevailing seasonal northerly winds carry ozone precursors southward across the county, causing health standards to be exceeded. The area experiences many exceedances of the PM2.5 standard each winter. This is due to the high population density, wood smoke, industrial and freeway traffic, and poor wintertime air circulation caused by extensive hills to the east and west that block wind flow into the region.

Attainment Status Designations
The CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for all state standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding 1 Iowa State University – Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM). 2024. Wind Roses found at:
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=SQL&network=CA_ASOS Accessed February 20, 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1215
6 those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

An “unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

Table 2 shows the state and federal standards for criteria pollutants and provides a summary of the attainment status for the San Francisco Bay Area with respect to national and state ambient air quality standards.

Table 2. NAAQS, CAAQS, and San Francisco Bay Area Attainment Status Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Attainment
Status Concentration Attainment Status
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
8-Hour 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3
) Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3
) Attainment 35 ppm
(40 mg/m3
) Attainment
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 mg/m3
) Attainment 0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3
) Attainment
1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3
) Attainment 0.100 ppm Unclassified
Ozone
(O3)
8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3
) Nonattainment 0.070 ppm Nonattainment
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3
) Nonattainment Not Applicable Not Applicable
Suspended
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Annual
Mean 20 μg/m3
Nonattainment Not Applicable Not Applicable
24-Hour 50 μg/m3 Nonattainment 150 μg/m3 Unclassified
Suspended
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual
Mean 12 μg/m3
Nonattainment 9.0 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-Hour Not Applicable Not Applicable 35 μg/m3 Nonattainment Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual
Mean Not Applicable Not Applicable

0.03 ppm
80 μg/m3 Attainment
24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3
) Attainment

0.14 ppm
(365 μg/m3
) Attainment
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3
) Attainment 0.075 ppm
(196 μg/m3
) Attainment
Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s. ppm = parts per million, mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: CARB Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf Accessed February 12, 2025.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1216
7 Existing Air Pollutant Levels
The Bay Area Air District (BAAD) monitors air pollution at various sites within the Bay Area.

The closest air monitoring station is located at 879 Baron Avenue in Redwood City, approximately 3-4 miles from NEASP. Note that this site, like most others in the Bay Area, does not monitor PM10. The data shows that during the most recently available period of 2019 through 2023, the project area has exceeded the state and/or federal O3 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. Table 3 lists air quality trends in data collected for the 2019 through 2023 period and published by CARB, which is the most recent time-period available. Ozone standards, based on the 1- and 8-hour average concentrations, were exceeded on 0 to 4 days annually in Redwood City. Measured 24- hour PM2.5 concentrations are exceeded on 0 to 9 monitoring days in Redwood City. Note that PM2.5 levels were influenced by smoke from wildfires. Air pollutants that include CO, Pb, and SO2 have been historically measured at low levels in the Project region and are, therefore, not measured anymore.

Table 3. Measured Ambient Air Quality Concentrations from 2019 through 2023 Pollutant Standard 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Ozone
Max 1-hr concentration 83 ppb 98 ppb 85 ppb 79 ppb 89 ppb No. days exceeded:

CAAQS 90 ppb 0 1 0 0 0
Max 8-hr concentration 77 ppb 78 ppb 64 ppb 62 ppb 61 ppb No. days exceeded:

CAAQS
NAAQS
70 ppb
70 ppb
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
CO – No measurements made
PM10 – No measurements made
PM2.5
Max 24-hr concentration 29.5 μg/m3 124.1 μg/m3 30.1g/m3 27.4 μg/m3 41.0 μg/m3 No. days exceeded:

NAAQS 35 μg/m3 0 9 0 0 1
Annual Concentration 7.0 g/m3 9.8 μg/m3 6.0μg/m3 6.8μg/m3 8.0μg/m3 No. days exceeded:

CAAQS
NAAQS
12 μg/m3
9 μg/m3
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Nitrogen Dioxide
Max 1-hr concentration 0.098 ppm 0.085 ppm 0.040 ppm 0.044 ppm 0.055 ppm No. days exceeded:

CAAQS NAAQS

0.0180 ppm

0.100 ppm
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Annual Concentration 0.009 ppm 0.008 ppm 0.007 ppm 0.008 ppm 0.007 ppm No. days exceeded:

CAAQS NAAQS

0.030 ppm

0.053 ppm
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: California Air Resource Board, 2025, Web: https://arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1217
8 sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools. For cancer risk assessments, infants and small children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Plan are located in the single-family homes adjacent to the south of the Plan Area. There are more sensitive receptors located to the west and northwest of the Area. The Plan Area would include new residential dwellings that are considered sensitive receptors.

Odors
Odor impacts are subjective in nature and are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. The ability to detect and react to odors varies considerably among people. A strong or unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and are more likely to cause complaints. BAAD responds to odor complaints from the public and considers a source to have a substantial number of odor complaints if the complaint history includes five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over a 3-year period. Facilities that are regulated by CalRecycle (e.g. landfill, composting, etc.) are required to have Odor Impact Minimization Plans in place.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970, the EPA established the NAAQS. The NAAQS were established for major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.

Both the EPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the public with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each criteria pollutant.

Federal Air Quality Regulations
At the federal level, the EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs.

EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.

The FCAA required EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implement Plan (SIP). Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.

Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1218
9 visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.2 The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAAA and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area which imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the Plan within the mandated timeframe may result in the application of sanctions on transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

The 1970 FCAA authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality standards and also set deadlines for their attainment. The FCAA Amendments of 1990 changed deadlines for attaining NAAQS as well as the remedial actions required of areas of the nation that exceed the standards. Under the FCAA, state and local agencies in areas that exceed the NAAQS are required to develop SIPs to show how they will achieve the NAAQS by specific dates. The FCAA requires that projects receiving federal funds demonstrate conformity to the approved SIP and local air quality attainment Plan for the region. Conformity with the SIP requirements would satisfy the FCAA requirements.

State Air Quality Regulations
The CARB is the agency responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA, adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts should focus on reducing the emissions from transportation and air-wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

CARB is also responsible for developing and implementing air pollution control plans to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. CARB is primarily responsible for statewide pollution sources and produces a major part of the SIP. Local air districts provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. CARB combines this data and submits the completed SIP to the EPA.

Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles.

2 See: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Web: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table, Accessed 13 August 2020

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1219
10 California Clean Air Act
In 1988, the CCAA established its own, more stringent ambient air quality standards, known as California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CCAA requires that all air basins in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for CO, O3, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA establishes local air districts and provides them with authority to regulate indirect sources and mandates that air quality districts focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. Each nonattainment area in the State is required to adopt a plan to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, for each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors. A Clean Air Plan is a SIP that shows how a district would reduce emissions to achieve air quality standards.

California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for coordination with the EPA and developing SIPs to achieve and maintain both the NAAQS and CAAQS. As a result, it has oversight of the state’s air pollution control programs. Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles.

California Air Resources Board Handbook
In 1998, CARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.3 CARB subsequently developed an Air
Quality and Land Use Handbook4
(Handbook) in 2005 that is intended to serve as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. The 2005 CARB Handbook recommends that planning agencies consider proximity to air pollution sources when considering new locations for “sensitive” land uses, such as residences, medical facilities, daycare centers, schools, and playgrounds.

Air pollution sources of concern include freeways, rail yards, ports, refineries, distribution centers, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gasoline service stations. Key recommendations in the Handbook relative to the Plan Area include taking steps to consider or avoid siting new, sensitive land uses:
x Within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
3 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. 4
California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

April.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1220
11 x Within 300 feet of gasoline fueling stations (note that new fueling stations utilize enhanced vapor recovery systems that substantially reduce emissions). x Within 300 feet of dry-cleaning operations (note that dry cleaning with TACs is being phased out and was completely prohibited beginning in 2023).

Since the handbook was published, California has substantially reduced or eliminated some of the TAC emission sources, such that these buffer distances are likely not applicable. For example, particulate and DPM emissions from trucks have been greatly reduced through U.S. EPA engine standards that phased in after 2010. TACs are no longer used in dry cleaning. Gasoline stations and passenger vehicles have greatly improved vapor recovery systems that reduce TAC emissions associated with gasoline dispensing facilities.

Truck and Bus Regulation
CARB is actively enforcing heavy-duty diesel vehicle regulations that require fleets to replace or retrofit heavy-duty diesel vehicles, with full implementation of the program scheduled for January 1, 2023. Compliance with the program is generally considered vehicles equipped with a 2010 or newer engine model year. As of January 1, 2020, the DMV cannot register any vehicle that does not meet the requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation.

Other CARB diesel programs affecting heavy-duty diesel vehicles include:
x Idling limits of no more than 5 minutes with special exceptions. x Emission Control Labels must be affixed to engines of all commercial heavy-duty diesel vehicles, and must be legible as proof the engine, at minimum, meets U.S. federal emissions standards for the engine model year.
x The Periodic Smoke Inspection Program requires owners of California-based fleets of two or more diesel vehicles to perform annual smoke opacity tests and to keep records for at least two years for each vehicle.
x The Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program uses random roadside inspections to verify that diesel engines do not smoke excessively and are tamper-free.

Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Regulations
CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from in-use (existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate matter and NOx exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet-averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent Federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, is expected to substantially reduce emissions of DPM and NOx.

Fleet owners must report the vehicle and engine information for all vehicles within their fleets operating in California. Fleet owners must also report owner information. Fleet owners should

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1221
12 report using DOORS, which is CARB’s online reporting tool. CARB issues a unique Equipment Identification Number (EIN) that is assigned to each vehicle. The fleet owner must label their vehicles with the EIN.

Other CARB diesel programs affecting off-road vehicles and equipment include:
x Idling limits of no more than 5 minutes with special exceptions. x Portable engines 50 hp or greater may require a permit or registration to legally operate.

BAAD is responsible for taking enforcement action against individuals who own or operate portable equipment without a registration or permit.

Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)
California’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) increases the percentage of medium and heavy-duty trucks sold as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) beginning in 2024. By 2035, 40 to 75 percent of new trucks sold, depending on size, would have to meet ZEV requirements. In addition, large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others are required to report information about shipments and shuttle services with 50 or more trucks, are required to report about their existing fleet operations. California abandoned this rule in January 2025, after it was unsuccessful in obtaining a waiver from U.S. EPA in 2024.

Omnibus Regulation
The Omnibus regulation will require manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks to comply with more stringent emissions standards that will reduce heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90%, overhaul engine testing procedures, and further extend engine warranties. The measure is meant to help California meet federal air quality standards (i.e., NAAQS). California received U.S. EPA approval for this regulation in December 2024.

Advanced Clean Cars
CARB regulates emissions from on-road vehicles in a number of ways that including the setting emission standards, testing vehicles through the Smog Check Program (administered by the Bureau of Automotive Repair) and implementation of fleet retrofit or replacement schedules. The Advanced Clean Cars Program, adopted by CARB in 2012, was designed to bring together CARB’s traditional passenger vehicle requirements to meet federal air quality standards and also support California’s AB 32 goals to develop and implement programs to reduce GHG emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal achieved in 2016 as a result of numerous emissions reduction programs.

This recent rule, Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) is phase two of the original rule. ACC II establishes a year-by-year process, starting in 2026, so all new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The regulation codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N79-20. U.S. EPA approval was received in December 2024. Currently, 16 percent of new light10.b June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1222
13 duty vehicles sold in California are zero emissions or plug-in hybrids. By 2030, 68 percent of new vehicles sold in California would be zero emissions and 100 percent by 2035.

Bay Area Air District
The BAAD seeks to attain and maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and education. The clean air strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. The BAAD also inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law.

Clean Air Plan
The BAAD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan which guides the region’s air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan is the latest Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOX), particulate matter and greenhouse gas emissions. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on April 19, 2017 by the BAAD’s board of directors:
x Updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone; x Provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan;
x Reviews progress in improving air quality in recent years; and x Continues and updates emission control measures.

CARE Program
The BAAD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area.5 The program
examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program has been implemented in three phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.

Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses has been used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. The BAAD has identified six communities as impacted:
5 See BAAD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-airrisk-evaluation-care-program.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1223
14 Concord, Richmond/San Pablo, Western Alameda County, San José, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, and Eastern San Francisco.

Overburdened Communities Program
To address localized health impacts in Bay Area communities, BAAD staff met with community advocacy organizations to develop concepts and recommendations on how the air district could be more health protective. Through a series of public workshops and a public comment period, BAAD amended Rule 2 (i.e., Regulation 2-1-24) in 2021. It identifies an overburdened community as an area located (i) within a census tract identified by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA’s) Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0, as having an overall score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract. Projects in overburdened communities must conduct specific public involvement activities and stationary sources are subject to specific permitting requirements.

Planning Healthy Places
BAAD developed a guidebook that provides air quality and public health information intended to assist local governments in addressing potential air quality issues related to exposure of sensitive receptors to exposure of emissions from local sources of air pollutants. The guidance provides tools and recommends best practices that can be implemented to reduce exposures. The information is provided as recommendations to develop policies and measures in city or county General Plans, neighborhood or specific plans, land use development ordinances, or into projects.

BAAD California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines In June 2010, BAAD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 2023, the BAAD revised their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines6
that include significance thresholds to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The current BAAD guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. Included in the guidelines are assessment methodologies for criteria air pollutants, air toxics, odors, and GHG emissions. Air quality impacts and health risks are considered potentially significant if they exceed these thresholds.

The BAAD recommends all projects include a “basic” set of best management practices (BMPs) to manage fugitive dust and consider impacts from dust (i.e., fugitive PM10 and PM2.5) to be less than significant if BMPs are implemented. BAAD strongly encourages enhanced BMPs for construction sites near schools, residential areas, other sensitive land uses, or if the basic BMPs do not adequately reduce fugitive emissions below BAAD significance thresholds.

6 Formerly known as Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April 2023.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1224
15 BAAD Rules and Regulations
Combustion equipment associated with the proposed project that includes new diesel engines to power generators and possibly cooling towers would establish new sources of particulate matter and gaseous emissions. Emissions would primarily result from the testing of the emergency backup generators and some minor emissions from cooling towers. Certain emission sources would be subject to BAAD Regulations and Rules. The District’s rules and regulations that may apply to project operation include:
x Regulation 1 – General Provisions
o Rule 1-30: Public Nuisance
x Regulation 2 – Permits
Rule 2-1: General Requirements
Rule 2-2: New Source Review
Rule 2-5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
x Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Rule 6-2: Commercial Cooking Equipment
Rule 6-3: Wood-Burning Devices
Rule 6-7: Odorous Substances
x Regulation 9 – Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants
Rule 9-1: Sulfur Dioxide
Rule 9-4: Nitrogen Oxides from Fan Type Residential Central Furnace Rule 9-6: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boilers and Water Heaters
Rule 9-7: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process Heaters Rule 9-8: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Permits
Rule 2-1-301 requires that any person installing, modifying, or replacing any equipment, the use of which may reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC).

Rule 2-1-302 requires that written authorization from the BAAD in the form of a Permit to Operate (PTO) be secured before any such equipment is used or operated.

Rule 2-1 lists sources that are exempt from permitting. At the proposed facility, the diesel fuel storage tanks are expected to be exempt from permitting.

New Source Review
Rule 2-2, New Source Review (NSR), applies to all new and modified sources or facilities that are subject to the requirements of Rule 2-1-301. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of such sources and to provide mechanisms by which no net increase in emissions will result.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1225
16 Rule 2-2-301 requires that an applicant for an ATC or PTO apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to any new or modified source that results in an increase in emissions and has emissions of precursor organic compounds, non-precursor organic compounds, NOx, SO2, PM10, or CO of 10.0 pounds or more per highest day. Based on the estimated emissions from the proposed project, BACT will be required for NOx emissions from the diesel-fueled generator engines.

BACT for Diesel Generator Engines
Since the generators will be used exclusively for emergency use during involuntary loss of power, the BACT levels listed for IC compression engines in the BAAD BACT Guidelines would apply.

These are provided for two separate size ranges of diesel engines:

I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition >50hp and <1,000hp: BAAD applies BACT 2 emission limits based on the ATCM for stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 brake-horsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB ACTM that ranges from 3.0 to 3.5 grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr). The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.15 g/hp-hr per CARB’s ACTM.

I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition >999hp: BAAD applies specific BACT emission limits for stationary emergency standby diesel engines equal or larger than 1,000 brakehorsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is 0.5 g/hp-hr. The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.02 g/hp-hr. POC (i.e., ROG) limits are 0.14 g/hp-hr.

Residential Furnaces and Boilers and Water Heaters
In 2023, BAAD adopted the proposed amendments to Rules 9-4 and 9-6 that are intended to reduce emissions of NOx from residential and commercial water heaters. These amended rules will affect Bay Area households that use natural gas appliances by, essentially, prohibiting the installation of new natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters. The rules require appliances that do not emit NOx. Currently, the only zero-NOx appliances available are electric appliances. Implementation begins in 2027, where only zero-NOx water heaters can be sold or installed, in 2029 where only zero-NOx furnaces can be sold or installed, and 2031 where only zero-NOx large commercial heaters can be sold or installed. Note that electric appliances would have zero emission of other criteria pollutants and zero emissions of direct GHG.

City of San Carlos
City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan
The San Carlos 2045 General Plan’s Environmental Management Element includes policies and actions to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, and GHG emissions. The following policies and actions are applicable to the proposed project:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1226
17 Policies
Policy EM-6.1: Support and comply with the BAAQMD, State and federal standards and policies that improve air quality in the Bay Area.

Policy EM-6.2: Support and encourage commercial uses to adopt environmentally friendly technologies and reduce the release of pollutants.

Policy EM-6.3: Support the reduction of emissions of particulates from wood burning appliances, construction activity, automobiles, trucks and other sources.

Policy EM-6.6: BAAQMD recommended measures to reduce PM10 and exhaust emissions associated with construction shall be applied to new development in San Carlos.

Policies
Policy EM-7.1: Take appropriate action to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Policy EM-7.6: 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 private sector shall be considered prior to the adoption of any GHG reduction strategy.

SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Significance Criteria
Per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and BAAD recommendations, air quality and GHG impacts are considered significant if implementation of the General Plan would:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
5) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1227
18 6) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

BAAD provided revised CEQA Guidelines. The thresholds identified in Table 4 and Table 5 represent the most recent guidance provided by BAAD. Though not necessarily a CEQA issue, the effect of existing TAC sources on future sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) is analyzed to comply with BAAD’s Clean Air Plan key goal of reducing population TAC exposure and protecting public health in the Bay Area.

Table 4. BAAD Plan-Level Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant/
Contaminant
Construction
Related Operational
Criteria Air
Pollutants (Regional) None

1. Consistency with Current Air Quality Plan control measures, and

2. Projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle trip increase is less than or equal to projected population increase
Local Risks and
Hazards None

1. Overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs (including adopted Risk Reduction Plan areas), and

2. Overlay zones of at least 500 feet from all freeways and highvolume roadways For this analysis – overlay zones are based on potential for sources to result in the following impacts:

1. Excess cancer risk >10.0 chances per million 2. Annual PM2.5 Concentration > 0.3 μg/m3

3. Hazard Index >1.0
Accidental Release of
Acutely Hazardous
Air Pollutants
None None
Odors None Identify the location, and include policies to reduce the impacts, of existing or planned sources of odors
Climate Impacts None

1. Meet State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045; or

2. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1228
19 Table 5. BAAD Project-Level Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance or
other Best Management Practices
(BMPs)*
Not Applicable
Health Risks and
Hazards
Single Sources/
Individual Project
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all
sources within 1000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer Risk >10 in a
million
OR
Compliance with
Qualified
Community
Risk Reduction
Plan
>100 in a million OR
Compliance with
Qualified Community
Risk Reduction Plan
Hazard Index >1.0 >10.0
Incremental annual
PM2.5
>0.3 μg/m3
>0.8 μg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Projects –
(Must Include A or
B)
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 vehicle miles traveled (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 in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Odors
Construction: No thresholds
Operation: Five confirmed odor complaints averaged over 3 years.

Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (μm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5μm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases.
* BAAD strongly recommends implementing all feasible fugitive dust management practices especially when construction projects are located near sensitive communities, including schools, residential areas, or other sensitive land uses.

Source: Bay Area Air District, 2022.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1229
20 AIR QUALTIY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan?
BAAD is the regional agency responsible for overseeing compliance with State and federal laws, regulations, and programs within the SFBAAB. BAAD, with assistance from ABAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), has prepared and implements specific plans to meet the applicable laws, regulations, and programs. The most recent and comprehensive of which is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
7 The BAAD has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating the significance of air quality impacts. In formulating compliance strategies, BAAD relies on planned land uses established by local general plans. Land use planning affects vehicle travel, which in turn affects region-wide emissions of air pollutants and GHGs.

Consistency of the NEASP with Clean Air Plan control measures is demonstrated by assessing whether the proposed Plan implements the applicable Clean Air Plan control measures. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. The control measures are divided into five categories that include:
x 40 measures to reduce stationary and area sources;
x 8 mobile source measures;
x 23 transportation control measures (including land use strategies); x 4 building sector measures;
x 2 energy sector measures;
x 4 agriculture sector measures;
x 3 natural and working lands measures;
x 4 waste sector measures;
x 2 water sector measures; and
x 3 super-GHG pollutants measures.

In developing the control strategy, BAAD identified the full range of tools and resources available, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to develop each measure. Implementation of each control measure will rely on some combination of the following:
x Adoption and enforcement of rules to reduce emissions from stationary sources, area sources, and indirect sources.
x Revisions to the BAAD’s permitting requirements for stationary sources. x Enforcement of CARB rules to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. x Allocation of grants and other funding by the Air District and/or partner agencies. x Promotion of best policies and practices that can be implemented by local agencies through guidance documents, model ordinances, and other measures. 7 Bay Area Air District (BAAD), 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1230
21 x Partnerships with local governments, other public agencies, the business community, nonprofits, and other groups. x Public outreach and education.
x Enhanced air quality monitoring.
x Development of land use guidance and CEQA guidelines, and Air District review and comment on Bay Area projects pursuant to CEQA.
x Leadership and advocacy.

This approach relies upon lead agencies to assist in implementing some of the control measures.

A key tool for local agency implementation is the development of land use policies and implementing measures that address new development or redevelopment in local communities. To address this impact, the NEASP’s effect on implementing the Clean Air Plan is evaluated based on consistency with Clean Air Planning projections (i.e., rate of increase in population versus vehicle travel)
Consistency with Clean Air Plan Projections
The BAAD, with assistance from ABAG and MTC, has prepared and implemented the Clean Air Plan to meet the applicable laws, regulations, and programs. The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The BAAD has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating the significance of air quality impacts. In formulating compliance strategies, BAAD relies on planned land uses established by local general plans. Land use planning affects vehicle travel, which in turn affects region-wide emissions of air pollutants and GHG.

Table 6 provides existing and future population, land use and traffic build-out projections for the NEASP. The service population is estimated to increase by 3,611 residents and 10,356 workers through build-out of 1,890 new residential units and a net increase of 4,508,000 sf of noncommercial uses. A daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assessment for build-out of the NEASP was not conducted since the plan area is located within a transit priority area, and would, therefore, not have a significant transportation impact. The rate of traffic increase was estimated using the projected trip generation rates. Under the NEASP buildout, the number of daily traffic trips in the area would increase by 203 percent. Since there are no residences in the area, population growth was estimated using the service population of residents and workers, which would increase by 193 percent. The rate of traffic growth would increase at a much greater rate than service population.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1231
22 Table 6. NEASP Traffic and Population Projections
Scenario Population Daily Trips Dwelling Units
1,000-SF NonResidential
Existing 0 Res
6,933 Non-Res 19,001 0 2,619
Plan (Net New) 3,611 Res
10,356 Non-Res 40,942 1,890 4,508
Existing to be
Removed -562 Non-Res -2,282 0 -418,000
Existing + Plan 3,611 Res
16,727 Non-Res 57,661 1,890 6,657
Net Change +3,611 Res
+9,794 Non-Res +38,660 +1,890 +4,038
Rate of Increase
over Existing
193% 203%
Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, December 2024.

The General Plan and NEASP have several policies and measures that are meant to reduce traffic, both trips and VMT. These are listed below:

San Carlos General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways ElementPolicies Policy CSH-2.2 Provide for adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities as viable transportation alternatives in San Carlos.

Policy CSH-3.1 Strive to reduce baseline and development-related traffic by 20 percent through public-private partnership efforts.

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

Policy CSH-3.3 Support the incorporation of Transportation Demand Measures in new development to reduce vehicle miles traveled and traffic impacts.

Policy CSH-3.4 Support Smart Growth and Sustainability principles to reduce travel time from housing to jobs, provide affordable transportation to all members of the community, allow compact mixed0use development and decrease dependency on automobiles.

Policy CSH-3.10 The City shall support efforts for a coordinated transportation system and maintaining acceptable levels of traffic with local, regional, and Caltrans agencies.

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

Policy CSH-7.4 Support traffic controls that recognize bicycles.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1232
23 NEASP Mobility Goals and Vision
Traffic and TDMGoal: Minimize drive-alone trips to reduce vehicle traffic and population Policies
Policy T.1 Minimize vehicular traffic volumes at district gateways Policy T.2 Balance hourly VMT to reduce peak traffic
Policy T.3 Maximize TDM tools to reduce vehicle trips
Multimodal OptionsGoal: Provide more travel options and support equitable access for all Policies
Policy M.1 Create complete pedestrian and bike networks Policy M.2 Support access to transit and shared mobility services Policy M.3 Manage mobility services collaboratively.

Causing Substantial VMT
In 2018, the California Office of Planning and Research proposed updates to CEQA guidelines establish VMT as the primary metric for evaluating a project’s impacts on the environment and transportation system. The NEASP’s transportation study was scoped to utilize the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County guidelines and considered transportation improvements that are incorporated into the plan.

The NEASP proposes transportation infrastructure changes within the Plan area to achieve sustainable transportation through the following mobility goals:
x Minimize drive-alone trips to reduce vehicle traffic and pollution. x Redesign our streets to expand multimodal options, improve safety, reduce flooding, and create beautiful places.
x Provide more travel options and support equitable access for all.

The Plan proposes improvements to multimodal access, such as adding new local internal street connections (both motorized and non-motorized) to increase redundancy into the transportation grid and balance traffic distribution.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1233
24 In addition to multimodal improvements, additional intersection level geometric changes are proposed within the Plan area to better manage vehicle traffic, accommodate new non-motorized crossings, achieve traffic calming and slower, safer speeds, and better organize access throughout the Plan area. These geometric changes include:
x Reconfiguration of general-purpose lanes to bike lanes and two-way left turn lanes. x Signal phase changes for turning movements (for example: permitted phasing, protected phasing, time-of-day based protected left turn phasing with flashing yellow arrows, split phasing, and right turn overlaps).
x Adding or reconfiguring turn pockets at signalized and unsignalized intersections. x Converting intersections from stop controlled to signalized.

The C/CAG’s VMT Estimation Tool was utilized to screen all parcels within the Plan area to determine level of VMT analysis required for the Plan. The tool includes a screening feature that uses the location of the project to determine if the project site is within a low VMT generating area, including low VMT generating traffic analysis zones (TAZ) or parcels and transit priority areas (TPA). All of the NEASP was determined to be located in a TPA, and therefore, the traffic impact on causing a substantial increase in VMT was considered less than significant. No quantifiable analysis of VMT was conducted that considered the effects of trip and VMT reduction.

Rate of Population Growth vs. Increase in Traffic
The only measure of traffic growth in NEASP is the predicted growth in the number of vehicle trips. The growth in the rate of daily trips in the NEASP would be greater than the rate of growth in population, both residents and workers. According to the BAAD-recommended thresholds of significance for Plan-Level evaluations, the impact would be significant since traffic related growth is projected to be greater than the growth in population. Traffic growth (i.e., trip generation or VMT) would have to be reduced by 5 percent to match the rate of population growth.

Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures
The Guidelines set forth criteria for determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan control measures. In general, a plan is considered consistent if a) the plan supports the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan; b) includes control measures; and c) does not interfere with implementation of the Clean Air Plan measures. NEASP is considered a sustainable development since it is an infill development that would be transit-oriented and located near a mix of uses that include employment and services. As a result, these types of communities tend to reduce the rate of per capita VMT.

The NEASP would generally be consistent with Clean Air Plan measures intended to reduce automobile and energy use, which are discussed below. Table 7 lists those Clean Air Plan policies relevant to the NEASP and indicates consistency with the policies.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1234
25 Table 7. Consistency with BAAD Control Strategy Measures from the Clean Air Plan Applicable BAAD Control Strategy Measures NEASP Consistency Transportation Control Measures
TR1: Clean Air Teleworking Initiative Consistent
Teleworking has become well supported
throughout the workforce since the CAP was
developed in 2017. The NEASP would encourage
the implementation of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs for new
development, which would include measures such
as increased support for telecommuting
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs Consistent
The NEASP contains a Transportation Demand
Management framework that sets standards for
future private development parcels to reduce
vehicle traffic and improve mobility options.

TR 5: Transit Efficiency and Use Consistent
While this no direct transit service within the Plan
area, improvements to the walking and biking
environment within is designed to encourage
connections to nearby rail and bus transits.

TR7: Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to
Transit
Consistent
The NEASP would ensure clear and safe
pedestrian circulation. Improvements to the
walking environment within is designated to
encourage connections to nearby rail and bus
transit.

TR8: Ridesharing, Last-Mile Connection Consistent
Supported by San Carlos General Plan Policy
EM-11.5 which encourages a shuttle system in
San Carlos to connect residential neighborhoods
to commercial areas, transit, and other
destinations and Policy EM-11.8 which promotes
a car sharing program.

TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities Consistent The NEASP would result in new-non motorized
access points, new protected bikeways and
improvements to the walking and biking
environment.

TR10: Land Use Strategies Consistent
The NEASP would introduce housing in an area
that currently has zero residents and would
encourage mixed-use development on parcels that
includes community-serving commercial uses.

TR13: Parking Policies Consistent
The NEASP would manage parking to provide
equitable access and improve efficiency of the
parking system through minimizing peak parking
demand, managing the curb to promote turnover,
and maximizing access to shared parking.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1235
26 Applicable BAAD Control Strategy Measures NEASP Consistency Building Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent
Supported by San Carlos General Plan Policy LU8.19 and EM-9.6 which encourages green building practices in new development and
redevelopment.

BL2: Decarbonize Buildings Consistent
Supported by San Carlos General Plan policy EM9.2 which supports on-site generation of energy through alternative forms of energy production
such as solar panels, wind turbines, and biomass
facilities
BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent
Supported by San Carlos General Plan Policy PR4.11 which encourages the maintenance and planting of trees where appropriate to provide
shades, absorb carbon, reduce the heat island
effect and reduce cooling loads in shades
buildings.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent
Supported by San Carlos General Plan Policy PR4.11 which encourages the maintenance and planting of trees where appropriate to provide
shades, absorb carbon, reduce the heat island
effect and reduce cooling loads in shades
buildings and Goal EM-3 which encourages the
enhancement of the urban forest through tree
protection and planting.

Waste Management Control Measures
WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction Consistent
Supported by the San Carlos General Plan Goal
EM-12 which includes policies aimed at reducing
solid waste disposal and increasing recycling.

Water Control Measures
WR2: Support Water Conservation Consistent
Supported by San Carlos General Plan policies
which encourage new development to utilize
recycled water for landscape irrigation, and
promotes water conservation (Policies EM-5.3,

5.4, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7)
As indicated in Table 7, the NEASP would include implementing policies and measures that are generally consistent with the applicable Clean Air Plan control measures.

Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1236
27 The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5 and PM10), the BAAD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts for projects. They do not apply to plans, such as NEASP.

Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.

Instead a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

NEASP Construction Period Emission
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in temporary emissions from construction activities associated with subsequent development, including demolition, site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. The potential health risk impact from construction is described under Impact 4.

Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site deposit mud on local streets, which is an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAD recommends all projects include a “basic” set of best management practices (BMPs) to manage fugitive dust and considers impacts from dust (i.e., fugitive PM10 and PM2.5) to be less-than-significant if BMPs are implemented to reduce these emissions. Policy EM-6.6: BAAD recommended measures to reduce PM10 and exhaust emissions associated with construction shall be applied to new development in San Carlos, implements BAAD recommended BMPs.

Construction exhaust emissions include those from equipment (i.e., off-road) and traffic (on-road vehicles and trucks). Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOX emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Architectural coatings and application of asphalt pavement are dominant sources of ROG emissions. The BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not identify quantified plan level thresholds for construction emissions. There are project-level thresholds of 54 pounds per average day for NOx, ROG and PM2.5 exhaust and 82 pounds per average day for PM10 exhaust. Unless controlled, the combination

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1237
28 of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from construction equipment and related traffic may pose a nuisance impact to nearby receptors or exceed acceptable levels for projects. In addition, NOX emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the BAAD NOX emission thresholds for projects.

Without application of appropriate control measures to reduce construction dust and exhaust, construction period impacts at the program level would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a level of lessthan-significant.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Project-Level Construction Assessment for Projects in the NEASP.

Construction criteria pollutant and TAC quantification shall be required on individual projects developed under the NEASP once those details are available through modeling to identify impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable BAAD construction thresholds. Reductions in emissions can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:
x Construction equipment selection for low emissions (e.g., U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards); x Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; x Low-VOC paints;
x Modify construction schedule; and
x Implementation of BAAD Enhanced Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

Note screening tables included in the BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines can be used to demonstrate less-than-significant criteria air pollutant emissions for small projects.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures AQ-1
Site-specific construction schedules and equipment are not known at this time for the future development area and have not been quantified at the project level. Implementation of General Plan Policy EM-6.6 would ensure that all construction projects employ the BAAD-Recommended BMPs to Control Construction Dust Emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure that construction of future development areas under the NEASP would be analyzed through project-level review to quantify construction criteria pollutant emissions and identify the specific measures needed to reduce potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, the potential impact from construction of individual construction projects within the future development in the NEASP area would be reduced to a level of less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1
NEASP Operational Period Emissions
Implementation of the NEASP would result in long-term area and mobile source emissions from operation and use of subsequent development. There are no significance thresholds applicable to

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1238
29 emissions associated with plan-level development; however, there are project-level thresholds. For annual emissions, these are emissions of greater than 10 tons for ROG, NOx or PM2.5 and 15 tons for PM10. For average daily emissions, these are 54 pounds for ROG, NOx or PM2.5 and 82 pounds for PM10.

CalEEMod Modeling Assumptions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents and employees. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are typical ROG emissions from these types of land uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate net emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full buildout in 2045 or later.

CalEEMod Land Uses
A complete operational model scenario for year 2045 was developed for CalEEMod. Inputs are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Operational Land Uses Entered into CalEEMod
Project Land Uses Size Units
Proposed Project Land Uses (year 2045)
Research & Development 2,964 1,000 sf
General Heavy Industry1 700 1,000 sf
General Office Building 180 1,000 sf
Regional Shopping Center 80 1,000 sf
Apartments Mid Rise 1,890 Dwellings
Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail 40 1,000 sf
Manufacturing 492 1,000 sf
Existing Uses (Year 2024 and 2045)
Research & Development 400 1,000 sf
General Heavy Industry1 1,264 1,000 sf
General Office Building 1512 1,000 sf
Hospital 4253 1,000 sf
Automobile Care Center 414 1,000 sf
Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail 234 1,000 sf
Manufacturing 104 1,000 sf
Existing To Be Removed (by Year 2045)
General Heavy Industry1 303 1,000 sf
General Office Building 45 1,000 sf
Hospital 10 1,000-sf
Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail 60 1,000 sf 1CalEEMod does not allow Light Industrial land uses to be over 50,000-sf, therefore the Light Industrial land use was modeled as General Heavy Industrial
2Includes General Office, Small Office Building, and Single Tenant Office Building square footages. 3Includes Hospital and Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic square footages. 4Includes Automobile Sales and Automobile Care Center square footages. 5CalEEMod does not include an Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic land use, therefore the Hospital land use was used.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1239
30 Model Year
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2045 would be lower.

Traffic Inputs
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Therefore, the projectspecific daily trip generation rate provided by the traffic consultant was entered into the model.8 The NEASP would produce approximately 54,589 daily trips. When considering the 25% TDM Reduction adjustments, the project would then produce 40,942 net daily trips. The daily trip generation was calculated using ITE trip generation rates, the size of the project land uses, and the adjusted total automobile trips. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were derived by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate with the project-specific daily weekday trip rate. Since VMT for these scenarios was not quantified, the default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used.

Fugitive dust generated by vehicles traveling on roadways generates PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

The silt loading factor in CalEEMod is the key input along with traffic travel distances. The road silt loading factor was computed based on assumptions used by CARB to calculate emissions inventories for different counties. CARB provides the silt loading factor for each roadway type and the estimated fraction of travel on those roadways for each county. The silt loading factor for San Mateo County was calculated to be 0.0357 grams per square meter.

Energy
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) provides electricity to the City of San Carlos. CalEEMod defaults for energy use for PCE were used for all Existing uses, which include the 20199 Title 24 Building
Standards. For the new Project uses, an emission factor of 0 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced was entered into CalEEMod based on CalEEMod default emission factor for 2045.

The Existing modeling scenarios included CalEEMod default inputs for natural gas for all land uses. The NEASP CalEEMod scenarios assumed that residential land uses would not include any natural gas infrastructure, but that the non-residential land uses would include natural gas infrastructure. Therefore, natural gas use for new Project residential land uses was set to zero and reassigned to electricity use in CalEEMod.
8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Northeast Area Specific Plan Transportation Analysis City of San Carlos Memorandum, December 13, 2024. 9
The 2022 Title 2024 standards have not been incorporated into the current CalEEMod model, which uses Title 24 standards from 2019 (CalEEMod User Guide). The 2019 standards, and therefore the energy analysis, are more conservative.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1240
31 Wood-Burning Devices
CalEEMod default inputs assume new residential construction would include wood-burning fireplaces and stoves. The new Project residential uses would not include wood-burning devices, as these devices are prohibited by BAAD Regulation 6, Rule 3.10 Therefore, the number of woodstoves and fireplaces for new Project residential uses in CalEEMod were set to zero.

Other Inputs
Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation were used.

Wastewater treatment was changed to 100-percent aerobic conditions to represent the use of city services (i.e., the project would not send wastewater to septic tanks or facultative lagoons).

Summary of Operational Period Emissions
Table 9 reports the predicted emissions from complete build out of the NEASP area in terms of annual emissions in tons and average daily operational emissions, assuming 365 days of operation per year. Net emissions between the proposed NEASP area and existing uses are also shown. There are no emission thresholds that apply to potential emissions generated by a plan, such as the NEASP. As shown in Table 9, annual and average daily emissions of ROG and NOx associated with operation of the Plan Area would exceed the BAAD significance thresholds that is applied to projects. PM2.5 emissions would be below the thresholds. Attachment 1 to this report includes the operational assumptions, CalEEMod model output files, and emissions calculations for the NEASP.

Table 9. NEASP Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Existing Annual Emissions in 2024
(tons/year)1 22.88 13.22 9.16 2.75
Existing Land Uses Annual Emissions in 2045
(tons/year)1 20.31 9.29 9.10 2.69
Future Proposed Annual Emissions in 2045
(tons/year) 45.35 13.82 15.95 4.55
Existing to Be Removed in 2045
(tons/year)1 3.05 1.29 1.22 0.36
NEASP (Existing + Project – Existing to Be
Removed) Annual Emissions in 2045
(tons/year) 62.61 tpy 21.82 tpy 23.83 tpy 6.88 tpy
Net increase over Existing 42.30 tpy 12.53 tpy 14.73 tpy 4.19 tpy BAAD Project-Level Thresholds
(tons per year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons
Average Daily Net Project Operational
Emissions (pounds per day)
2 231.8 lbs./day 68.7 lbs./day 80.7 lbs./day 23.0 lbs./day BAAD Project-Level Thresholds
(pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 1 Listed for informational purposes. 2 Assumes 365-day operation. 10 Bay Area Air District, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/regulation-6-rule3/documents/20191120_r0603_final-pdf.pdf?la=en

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1241
32 Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a pollutant that affects air quality locally. Monitoring data from all ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Bay Area indicate that existing carbon monoxide levels are currently below national and California ambient air quality standards. Monitored CO levels have decreased substantially since 1990 as newer vehicles with greatly improved exhaust emission control systems have replaced older vehicles. The Bay Area has been designated as an attainment area for the CO standards. The highest measured levels in the Bay Area during the past three years are 3.0 ppm or less for eight-hour averaging periods, compared with state and federal criteria of 9.0 ppm.

Even though current CO levels in the Bay Area are well below ambient air quality standards, and there have been no exceedances of CO standards in the Bay Area since 1991, elevated levels of CO still warrant analysis. CO hotspots (occurrences of localized high CO concentrations) could still occur near busy congested intersections. Recognizing the relatively low CO concentrations experienced in the Bay Area, the BAAD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that a project would have a less-than-significant impact if it would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Peak hour traffic volumes at intersections affected by implementation of the NEASP area would be less than 10,000 vehicle trips per hour. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Project-Level Operational Assessment for Projects in the NEASP.

Total NEASP caused emissions exceed BAAD-recommended project level thresholds. Therefore, projects proposed within the NEASP shall conduct operational criteria pollutant analysis in accordance with the latest guidance provided by BAAD. The BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide project screening criteria and level sizes to determine if projects warrant modeling to evaluate their emissions. Projects that meet the screening criteria and are smaller than the screening sizes (e.g., those listed in Table 4-1, pages 4-3 and 4-4, of the 2022 BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) would be considered to have less-than-significant operational air pollutant emissions. Projects that are larger than the screening sizes would undergo refined analysis to determine if emissions exceed the project-level thresholds. Projects that are found to have emissions above thresholds are required to implement additional mitigation, including but not limited to:
x Implement additional TDM programs to reduce residential VMT as required by the City’s Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan.
x Proposed development within the NEASP shall incorporate additional green building measures such as rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, rough-ins for electric vehicle charging, use of efficient lighting and irrigation, and recycled water, as feasible.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1242
33 x Developed parcels shall require within their CC&Rs and/or ground leases requirements for all future interior spaces to be repainted only with architectural coatings that meet the “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements.

Effects of Emissions during Project Operation
When evaluated using the thresholds contained in the 2022 version of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines the NEASP would have emissions of ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) during operation at full build-out that exceed thresholds of significance for projects.

These emissions cannot be feasibly reduced further, as the proposed NEASP includes features and mitigation measures to minimize these emissions. Such features include a mix-use project near transit with regional connections, implementation of a TDM plan, and mitigation measures to reduce project level emissions. Emissions of ROG associated with consumer product use would be the overwhelming contributor to project ROG emissions. Vehicle travel would be the overwhelming cause of NOx emissions.

The increase in NEASP emissions of these pollutants result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable ambient air quality standard. Because the project would increase the rate of traffic growth in excess of the rate of population growth and have emissions of ROG and NOx that would exceed emissionbased significance thresholds, the NEASP could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutant emissions that contribute to elevated ozone concentrations that exceed ambient air quality standards.

Ozone is a powerful oxidant that is harmful to public health at high concentrations. Ozone, at high levels, can damage the tissues of the lungs and respiratory tract. High concentrations of ozone irritate the nose, throat, and respiratory system and constrict the airways.11 Ozone also can aggravate other respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, causing increased hospital admissions. Repeated exposure to high ozone levels can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and permanently damage lung tissue.

Ozone can also have negative cardiovascular impacts, including chronic hardening of the arteries and acute triggering of heart attacks. Children are most at risk, as they tend to be active and outdoors in the summer, when ozone levels are highest. Seniors and people with respiratory illnesses are also especially sensitive to ozone’s effects. Even healthy adults, working or exercising outdoors during high ozone levels, can be affected. Ozone is not emitted directly from pollution sources. Instead, ozone is formed in the atmosphere through complex chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight between two types of precursor chemicals: hydrocarbons, often referred to as ROG and NOx. As air temperatures rise, the formation of ground level ozone increases at an accelerated pace. Ozone levels are usually highest on clear, hot, windless summer afternoons, especially in inland valleys that are downwind of pollution sources.

Ozone is a regional pollutant. Emissions of ROG and NOx throughout the Bay Area contribute to ozone formation. Because emissions in one part of the region can impact air quality miles downwind, efforts to reduce ozone levels focus on reducing emissions of ROG and NOx throughout the region. The relationship between ROG and NOx in ozone formation is complex; 11 See: California Air Resource Board, Web: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ozone-and-health

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1243
34 the ratio between the precursor pollutants influences how ozone forms. BAAQMD’s ozone PRGHOLQJLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKH %D\ $UHDLV ³52*ဨOLPLWHG´ IRU R]RQH IRUPDWLRQ 7KLV PHDQVWKDW reducing ROG emissions in the Bay Area will be more productive in reducing ozone, at least in the near term. However, modeling also suggests that large reductions in NOx emissions will be needed to achieve the ozone reductions required to attain the current health-based ozone standards.

A certain amount of ozone formation occurs naturally, even in the absence of anthropogenic emissions of ROG and NOx.12
As stated in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality is considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

The project emissions from operation are compared against regional emissions that lead to elevated concentrations of ozone in Table 9. By comparing project emissions to regional emissions, one gets the sense of the magnitude of the project effects on regional air quality. In terms of ROG, NEASP operational emissions in comparison to regional emissions are a small portion of the regional inventory (i.e., 0.06 to 0.13 percent) that the effect of the entire build-out of NEASP would not cause regional pollutant levels to measurably change. As a result, operation of NEASP would not measurably increase ozone levels. Therefore, the health effects associated with the project emissions would not be measurable. However, the emissions from the combined projects built out under NEASP would increase emissions above the threshold of 54 pounds per average day for ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx), such that the emissions would be cumulatively considerable.

Table 10. Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin Emissions (in tons/day)13 Scenario ROG NOx
Bay Area Air Basin in 2024 90.28 66.92
Bay Area Air Basin in 20451 92.22 69.03
Unmitigated Project Operation
(Increase over existing)

0.12 tons/day
(42.3 tons/year)

0.03 tons/day
(12.5 tons/year)
% of Basin in 2040 0.13% 0.06% 1
CARB emission inventories are only reported out to year 2040, which is the closest year of analysis to proposed NEASP operational year
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

April. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_- proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en
13 CARB. 2021. 2016 SIP Emission Projection Data. See
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat.php?_ga=2.50848289.940452654.1638212311- 106250637.1504031780 accessed November 29, 2021 to estimate year 2020 and 2030 emissions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1244
35 Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impacts related to increased health risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the Plan Area vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. The build-out of the NEASP would introduce a new temporary source of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and long-term sources of TACs during operation (i.e., mobile and stationary sources).

There are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the NEASP. Plan Area construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, the NEASP would place sensitive receptors within the plan area. Traffic generated by the NEASP would consist of mostly light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles and the NEASP may introduce new stationary sources such as emergency diesel-powered generators, which would produce TAC and air pollutant emissions in the area.

NEASP impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of the existing sources of TAC was also assessed in terms of describing the cumulative risk which includes the project contribution, as well as the risk on the new sensitive receptors introduced by the NEASP.

NEASP Construction TAC Exposure
Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the NEASP could include shortterm construction sources of TACs. There are sensitive receptors adjacent to many portions of the Plan Area and there will be future residents in the NEASP development areas that could potentially be exposed to construction TACs during construction activity.

Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. The construction exhaust emissions may pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as nearby residents. The primary health risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities would have to be conducted at a project level to address these impacts. Since specific construction plans and schedules for construction are not known, it is not possible to quantify the impacts and determine the significance. There are various measures that can be incorporated into construction plans that could minimize these potential impacts.

Because residential development in the Plan Area would be developed over time, there could be on-site residences (new sensitive receptors) occupied while construction would be occurring in other areas of the Plan Area. Health risks impacts to nearby off-site and future on-site sensitive receptors associated with temporary construction of the future development is considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce this impact to less-than-significant.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1245
36 NOTE TO REVIEWERS – Very large or complex projects constructed near sensitive receptors may not be able to reduce impacts to less-than-significant. That would either require a subsequent EIR or finding here of significant and unavoidable impact (for an impact that may not occur).

NEASP Operation TAC Exposure
Traffic
Traffic volumes would increase with the implementation of the NEASP. However, TAC emissions from traffic are anticipated to decrease for several reasons:
x Vehicles, especially heavy-duty trucks, that meet newer diesel emissions standards will replace older vehicles (Note that trucks are the highest source of traffic TAC emissions); x Overall increase in fuel efficiency of automobiles and trucks; and x An increase in the percentage of vehicles that have zero emissions.

Nonetheless localized increases in traffic emissions of TACs may occur as NEASP is built out.

These increases would likely be dependent on the specific types and sizes of land uses and the amount of truck traffic generated. Projects that include warehouses or distribution centers could have impacts with respect to health risks, depending on proximity of receptors.

Stationary Sources
Development of NEASP would inevitably include stationary equipment such as backup power generators powered by diesel engines. Operation of diesel generators would be a source of TAC emissions in the form of DPM. There are no specific plans to include this equipment nor plans that would reasonably allow identification of potential equipment. These diesel engines would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) and require permits from the BAAD, since they will be equipped with engines larger than 50-HP. BACT requirements would apply to these generators that would limit DPM emissions. As part of the BAAD permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (BACT) and pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. The risk assessment would be prepared by BAAD. Depending on results, BAAD would set limits for DPM emissions (e.g., more restricted engine operation periods).

Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAD regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air quality health risk impact on their own. However, combined with other project sources, such as traffic or construction equipment, this could lead to a significant impact.

Health Risk Impacts – Construction and Operation
Sources of TACs or PM2.5 emissions associated in the Plan Area have not been identified. The mix of land uses envisioned under the NEASP could include sources such that significant exposures

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1246
37 might occur. The impacts may be caused by a combination of construction activity, truck traffic, diesel-powered emergency generators, etc. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Project-Level Health Risk Assessments for Projects in near Sensitive Receptors.

Applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors or worker receptors as defined by the BAAD (e.g., residential, schools) shall prepare a site-specific construction and operational health risk assessment (HRA). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than BAAD project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAD project level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed to further reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable. Measures to reduce significant health risk impacts include:
x Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
x Site design modifications, such as locating TAC emitting equipment at portion of a site that have the least impact.
x Operational modifications, such as limiting the number of operational hours of TAC emitting equipment or activities.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-3
Implementation of measures identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-3 through future project-specific assessments would reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions. The selection of appropriate equipment, described under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, could reduce emissions substantially. For example, the use of diesel-powered construction equipment that meets U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or included DPM filters certified by CARB can significantly reduce DPM emissions. That measure alone would likely reduce construction health risk impacts to a less-than-significant level. Other measures would further reduce impacts. Additional measures to reduce TAC and PM2.5 emissions would include hourly limits for equipment use, electrification or use of alternative fuels for equipment, and appropriate siting and design of equipment. The application of appropriate measures would reduce maximum cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and HI to below respective threshold levels. Therefore, after implementation of these recommended measures, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to health risk caused by construction activities.

TAC Effects on NEASP Sensitive Receptors
The project would include new sensitive receptors, primarily in the form of residents. Substantial sources of existing air pollution can adversely affect sensitive receptors proposed as part of new projects. BAAD recommends using a 1,000-foot screening radius around a project site for purposes of identifying health risk impacts from citing a new source of TACs or new sensitive receptors. A review of the Plan Area using BAAD’s geographic information systems (GIS) screening maps

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1247
38 identified the existing health risks from nearby TAC sources. These include 33 nearby stationary sources (diesel-power generators, generic sources, and gas stations), and traffic on nearby highways (U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 82/El Camino Real), local roadways (Industrial Road, Old County Road, Harbor Boulevard, and Holly Street), and diesel-powered locomotives on the rail line along the western boundary of the Plan Area. shows the existing TAC sources, the NEASP, and the 1,000-foot influence area. Details of the screening and health risk calculations are included in Attachment 2.

Figure 2. NEASP Area with Residential Development and 1,000-foot Influence Area (see Tables 10-14 for Source Buffer Distances)
High-Volume Roadways
Highways – U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 82
The Specific Plan area is located near U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and State Route 82 / El Camino Real (S.R. 82). Highway health risk screening data provided by the BAAD raster files was used to risk levels associated with these highways (see Attachment 2). The risk levels provided by BAAD represents cumulative risk from highways. Refined modeling of the individual highways would show lower risk values.
~ 0 ~ 0
I ~ ~ :;; C
.c
t:
0 Z 0
0 :a ::;: >- "' :::, :;;
56 3 800 56 3 900 56400056 4100564200 56430 0 564400 56450 056 4 600564 700 56480 0564 900 56 500 056 510 0 56 5200 56 530 056 5400 56 5 50 056 560056 5 700 56 580 056 5900 CalTrain
--Industrial Road
- Old County Road
- Harbor Bou levard
--Holly Street * Stationary Sources * Statonary Source Exceedences Residential Mixed-Use Area
c:::J Northeast Specific Plan Area Boundaries
D 1,000-ft Influence Area
0 0 "' N "' :;;
0 0
..,
N "' :;;
56 380 0 56 3 900 56400 0564100564200 56430 0 564400 56450 056 4 600564 700 56480 0 56 4 900 56 500 056 510 0 56 5200 56 530 056 5400 56 5 50 056 560 056 5 700 56 580 056 5900 UTM - Easting (meters)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1248
39 Table 10. BAAD Raster Screening Data - Highway Impacts within Specific Plan Area Highway Estimated
ADT Road Direction Side of Road
Estimated Screening Buffer
Distance for Exceedance
(feet)
U.S. 101 224,000 Northwest-Southeast West/south 1,000
El Camino Real 24,000 Northwest-Southeast East/north <400 Local Roadways – Industrial Road, Old County Road, Harbor Boulevard, and Holly Street Local roadways with traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles per day that are within 500 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially have a significant TAC effect on the proposed Specific Plan area. The following roadways were estimated as having traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day and located within 500 feet of sensitive receptors: Industrial Road, Old County Road, and Holly Street. Figure 2 shows the locations of these roadways.

There is no screening tool to predict health risk impacts from local roadways approved by BAAD at the time of this analysis, and without more specific traffic and receptor location information for the Plan area, modeling could not be conducted. The distance at which the increased cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration from the roadways would not exceed the BAAD single-source thresholds for TAC sources was estimated based on the size of the roads, which side of the roadway, and wind direction. Wind flows generally from the west-northwest, so highest risk levels would be downwind (i.e., east side of north-south roadways and south side of east-west roadways). Table 11 lists information about the roadways and the estimated buffer distances where exceedances of health risk thresholds may occur.

Table 11. Local Roadway Segments and Buffer Distances for Exceedance Road Estimated Cumulative
+ NEASP ADT Road Direction Side of Road
Estimated Screening Buffer
Distance for Exceedance (feet)
Industrial
Road 13,045 to 20,9221 NorthwestSoutheast Roadway
East 200
West 100
Old County
Road 14,636 to 16,9841 NorthwestSoutheast Roadway
East 200
West 100
Holly Street 53,4221,3 SouthwestNortheast Roadway
North 500
1 Based on traffic analysis reported ADT.
2 Based on traffic analysis peak-hour volume adjusted by x10 for ADT. 3 Much of Holly Street is over 500 feet from NEASP
BAAD Permitted Stationary Sources
Permitted stationary sources of air pollution within and near NEASP were identified using BAAD’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2022 GIS website,14 which identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and adjustments based on OEHHA guidance. Of the 33 stationary sources identified within the Plan 14 BAAD, https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1249
40 Area, Plants #20577, #103150-1, #107089-1, #112510-1, #110743-1, #110968-1 and #111955-1 had risk impacts exceeding BAAD single-source thresholds without distance adjustments. Table 12 shows the distance sensitive receptors should be from these seven sources in order to have health risk impacts below the significance thresholds, as shown in Table 12. also shows the stationary sources within the Plan Area and the stationary sources’ risk impacts are in Attachment

2. Table 12. Distances to Threshold from Existing Stationary TAC Sources Plant
Estimated Screening Buffer
Distance for Exceedance
(feet)
South Bay Recycling LLC (SBR) (Facility ID #20577 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, 333 Shoreway Road) 920
Auto Pride Wash (Facility ID #103150-1, Car Washes, 195 El Camino Real) 15
Justin Chevron (Facility ID #107089-1, Gas Dispensing Facility, 90 El Camino Real) 100
Double Time (Facility ID #112510-1, Gas Dispensing Facility, 701 Harbor Blvd) 135
A & A Gas Inc DBA A&A Gas & Food Mart (Facility ID #110743- 1, Gas Dispensing Facility, 907 Holly St) 150
Flyers #489 (Facility ID #110968-1, Gas Dispensing Facility, 90 610 Harbor Blvd) 85
Bay Petroleum dba Holly 76 (Facility ID # 111955-1, Gas Dispensing Facility, 906 Holly St) 165
Railroad Health Risk Impacts
The NEASP site is located just north of the rail line used for Caltrain and some UPRR freight service. The western portion of the Plan Area is located near the rail line. Trains traveling on these lines generate TAC and PM2.5 emissions from diesel locomotives. Due to the proximity of the rail line to the Plan Area, potential health risks to future Plan Area residents from DPM and PM2.5 emissions from diesel locomotive engines were evaluated.

Cancer risk, PM2.5 concentrations, and HI associated with trains on the nearby railways were computed using by predicting locomotive DPM emissions, dispersion modeling using AERMOD with meteorological data and applying cancer risk calculations consistent with the State’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) consistent with BAAD methodology described in Appendix E of the BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

This assessment considered the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, which is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization Program that electrified the Caltrain Corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. Caltrain recently began service with a mixed fleet of electric and diesel locomotives, with approximately 75 percent of the service being electric and 25 percent being diesel between San José and San Francisco. After the initial implementation period, diesel locomotives will be replaced with electric trains over time as they reach the end of their service life. Caltrain’s diesel-powered locomotives would continue to be used to provide service between the San José Diridon Station and Gilroy. It is expected that all of the San José to San Francisco

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1250
41 fleet would be electric trains about five to eight years after initial electric service begins.15 DPM emissions from trains on the rail line were calculated using EPA emission factors for locomotives16 and CARB adjustment factors to account for fuels used in California.17 When considering the health risk impacts from only diesel locomotive freight trains, potentially significant health risk impacts (mainly for cancer risk) would extend out approximately 375 feet north or east from the rail line, as shown in Table 13. The railway risk modeling information is in Attachment 2.

Table 13. Distances to Threshold from Existing TAC Sources Rail Line Distance to Threshold
(feet)
Caltrain/UPRR 375 north of tracks
Summary of Existing TAC Health Risks
Figure 2 identifies the existing TAC sources within the Plan Area. Any development of sensitive receptors within affected areas identified in the sections above would potentially expose sensitive receptors to significant exposure of cancer risk and/or PM2.5 concentrations. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Projects developed within the NEASP that are affected by air pollutant or TAC sources shall implement appropriate
measures to minimize long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC) and annual PM2.5 exposure for new project occupants:

This mitigation measure applies to any project developed within affected areas that are near high volume roadways, stationary sources, or Caltrain, as indicated in and Tables 10-14. Project would either need to include measures to reduce long-term exposure to TAC and PM2.5, as described below, or conduct site-specific analysis to identify the level of exposure to TACs in terms of cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations. The analysis shall use procedures prescribed by BAAD (e.g., the BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) to predict these exposures. Where cancer risk exceeds 10 chances per million from any single source or 100 chances per million for cumulative sources (i.e., within 1,000 feet), where annual PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 ȝJP3 from any single
source or 0.8 ȝJP3 for cumulative sources, and where HI exceed 1.0 from any single source or

10.0 for cumulative sources, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Design project developments to limit exposure from sources of TACs and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions.
b. Install air filtration at units that have predicted cancer risk levels above 10 chances per million and PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3 μg/m3
. Air filtration devices shall be rated
MERV13 or higher. Alternately, at the approval of the City, equivalent control technology may be used if it is shown by a qualified air quality consultant or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) engineer that it would reduce risk below significance thresholds. 15Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015. 16 Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025) 17 Offroad Modeling, Change Technical Memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1251
42 c. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC air filtration system shall be required.
d. Ensure that any lease agreements and other property documents (1) require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected units for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed.
e. Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant or HVAC engineer verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce cancer risk below 10 chances per million and PM2.5 concentrations below 0.3 μg/m3 from any source.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-4
The BAAD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and BAAD’s Planning Healthy Places recommend that developments in areas affected by air pollutant sources install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply. These systems should be installed on either an individual unit-by-unit basis, with individual air intake and exhaust ducts ventilating each unit separately, or through a centralized building ventilation system. The ventilation system should be certified to achieve certain effectiveness.

The air filtration systems using MERV13, can reduce exposures by 70 to 85 percent. There are filtration systems that can achieve greater reductions. The effective particulate control efficiency using a MERV13 filtration system is about 85 percent and 70 percent when accounting for 3 hours of non-filtered air (e.g., being outside or having windows open).

Assuming the effectiveness of filtration systems described above, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would reduce maximum cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and HI to below respective threshold levels. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Impact AIR-4: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors. However, they would be localized and are not likely to adversely affect people off site by resulting in confirmed odor complaints. The NEASP does not identify any uses that are typical sources of odors that could lead to objectionable odors that generate frequent odor complaints.

Odor impacts could occur if residents associated with the project experienced objectionable odors and made complaints. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, there are no quantitative methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact. The significance of odor impacts is based on the potential to cause odor complaints.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1252
43 BAAD publishes screening buffer distances for odor sources and sensitive receptors in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. There are no identified major sources of odors. Uses in the plan area may include restaurants or auto repair shops that could have localized odors but not likely to result in frequent odor complaints.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Regulatory Framework
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. 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. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
x CO2, CH4, and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. x N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. x CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
x Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty. x HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. x PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing.

Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently affecting 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. The climate and several naturally occurring resources 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/or loss of plant and animal species could 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.

Federal and Statewide GHG Emissions

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1253
44 The U.S. EPA reported that in 2022, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 6,343 million metric tons (MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).18 These emissions were 17 percent lower than 2005 levels, but 1 percent higher than 2021.

CARB updates the statewide GHG emission inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2022 emissions.19 In 2022, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 371.1 MMT CO2e, 2.4 percent lower than 2021. Since peak levels in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2014, statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG Limit and have remained below the Limit since that time.

State Regulatory Actions for GHG Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 – California GHG Reduction Targets Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to set GHG emission reduction targets for California. The three targets established by this EO are as follows:
(1) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, (2) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) reduce California’s GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the State’s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the State’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, the CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and Building Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which has a target of reducing GHG emissions 85 percent below 1990 levels.

The first Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. Its most recent update was completed in December of 202220. It contains the State’s main strategies to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. This plan extends and expands upon the earlier versions with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. It also takes the step of adding carbon neutrality as a science-based guide and touchstone for California’s climate work.

Measures to achieve carbon neutrality include rapidly moving to zero emission vehicles (ZEV), removing natural gas as an option for space conditioning, increasing the number of solar arrays and wind turbines, and scaling up renewable hydrogen for hard-to-electrify end uses. 18 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2024. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2022.

April 11. Web: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks 19 CARB. 2024. California Greenhouse Gas Emission for 2000 to 2022. Web: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data 20 CARB. 2022. Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update and Appendices. Web: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1254
45 Senate Bill 375 – California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008) California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities.

The legislation also allows applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan planning organization (i.e., MTC) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce VMT and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG reduction targets.

Senate Bills 350 and 100 - Renewable Portfolio Standards In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increased the states Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent target for 2020 to a 50 percent renewables target by 2030.

In September 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown to revise California’s RPS program goals, furthering California’s focus on using renewable energy and carbon-free power sources for its energy needs. The bill requires all California utilities to supply a specific percentage of their retail sales from renewable resources by certain target years. By December 31, 2024, 44 percent of the retails sales would need to be from renewable energy sources, by December 31, 2026 the target would be 40 percent, by December 31, 2027 the target would be 52 percent, and by December 31, 2030 the target would be 60 percent. By December 31, 2045, all California utilities would be required to supply retail electricity that is 100 percent carbon-free and sourced from eligible renewable energy resources to all California end-use customers.

SB 743 Transportation Impacts

Senate Bill 743 required lead agencies to abandon the old “level of service” metric for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts, which was based solely on the amount of delay experienced by motor vehicles. In response, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed a VMT metric that considered other factors such as reducing GHG emissions and developing multimodal transportation.21 A VMT-per-capita metric was adopted into the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in November 2017. Given current baseline per-capita VMT levels computed by CARB in the 2017 Scoping Plan of 22.24 miles per day for light-duty vehicles and 24.61 miles per day for all vehicle types, the reductions needed to achieve the 2050 climate goal are 16.8 percent for light-duty vehicles and 14.3 percent for all vehicle types combined. Based on this analysis (as well as other factors), OPR recommended using a 15-percent reduction in per capita VMT as an appropriate threshold of significance for evaluating transportation impacts. 21 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1255
46 Executive Order B-55-18 – Carbon Neutrality
In 2018, a new statewide goal was established to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. CARB and other relevant state agencies are tasked with establishing sequestration targets and creating policies/programs that would meet this goal.

Executive Order B-30-15 & Senate Bill 32 GHG Reduction Targets – 2030 GHG Reduction Target In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which extended the goals of AB 32, setting a GHG emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which legislatively established the GHG reduction target of 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
22 While the State is on track to exceed the AB 32 scoping plan 2020 targets, this plan is an update to reflect the enacted SB 32 reduction target.

SB 32 was passed in 2016, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. CARB has drafted a 2022 Scoping Plan Update to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2022 draft plan:
x Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
x Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.
x Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs.
x Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as a driving principle.
x Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands to the state’s GHG emissions, as well as its role in achieving carbon neutrality.
x Relies on the most up to date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools, including carbon capture and sequestration as well as direct air capture. x Evaluates multiple options for achieving our GHG and carbon neutrality targets, as well as the public health benefits and economic impacts associated with each.

The Scoping Plan was updated in 2022 and lays out how the state can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. It is the first Scoping Plan that adds carbon neutrality as a science-based guide and touchstone beyond statutorily established emission reduction targets.23 The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S22 California Air Resource Board, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Targets. November. Web:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 23 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1256
47 3-05. The 2022 Scoping Plan outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue driving down GHG emissions and to not only obtain the statewide goals, but cost-effectively achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045 or earlier. In the 2022 Scoping Plan, CARB recommends:
x VMT per capita reduced 12% below 2019 levels by 2030 and 22% below 2019 levels by 2045.
x 100% of Light-duty vehicle sales are zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) by 2035. x 100% of medium duty/heavy duty vehicle sales are ZEV by 2040. x 100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are ZEV by 2030. x 100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035.
x All electric appliances in new residential and commercial building begin in 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial).
x 80% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2035.
x 80% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2045.

California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 & Part 6 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.24 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that involve 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 non-residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2022 California Building Standard 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, while being cost effective for homeowners.

However, the CEC does not mandate specific fuel types. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The current energy efficiency standards (2022 Energy Code) replaced the 2019 Energy Code as of January 1, 2023. The 2022 Energy Code builds on California’s technology innovations, encouraging inclusion of market-ready electric products in new construction, such as heat pumps for climate control and water heating. Under the 2022 standards, all new homes are required to be electric-ready. That means buildings with gas stoves have electrical panels and wiring to support a switch to electric stoves. This Energy code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. This update provides crucial steps in the state’s progress toward 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by midcentury.25 24 See: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-ListFolder/CALGreen#:~:text=CALGreen%20is%20the%20first%2Din,to%201990%20levels%20by%202020. 25 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1257
48 CEC studies have identified the most aggressive electrification scenario as putting the building sector on track to reach the carbon neutrality goal by 2045.26 Installing new natural gas infrastructure in new buildings will interfere with this goal. To meet the State’s goal, communities have been adopting “Reach” codes that prohibit natural gas connections in new and remodeled buildings.

Requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are regularly updated on a 3-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 CALGreen 2022 standards require deployment of additional EV chargers in various building types, including multifamily residential and nonresidential land uses. They include requirements for both EV capable parking spaces and the installation of Level 2 EV supply equipment for multifamily residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen standards include both mandatory requirements and more aggressive voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions for both EV readiness and the actual installation of EV chargers. Providing EV charging infrastructure that meets current CALGreen requirements will not be sufficient to power the anticipated more extensive level of EV penetration in the future that is needed to meet SB 32 climate goals.

An update to the current CALGreen Energy Code will be effective on January 1, 2026, with the adoption of the 2025 Energy Code.27 The 2025 standards were adopted at the September 11, 2024 CEC business meeting and will go to the California Building Standards Commission for approval as part of California’s Building Standards Code before the end of 2024. It will apply to newly constructed buildings, additions, and alterations and focus on:
x Expanding the use of heat pumps for space conditioning and water heating in newly constructed single-family, multifamily, and select nonresidential buildings. x Encouraging electric-ready buildings to set up owners to use cleaner electric water heating and cooking when they are ready to invest in those technologies. x Updating photovoltaic and battery energy storage system standards for high-rise multifamily and nonresidential buildings to achieve cost effective installations in consideration of revised net billing and virtual net billing rules. x Updating space conditioning system control standards for nonresidential buildings. x Updating ventilation requirements in multifamily buildings to improve indoor air quality.

Advanced Clean Cars
The Advanced Clean Cars Program, originally adopted by CARB in 2012, was designed to bring together CARB’s traditional passenger vehicle requirements to meet federal air quality standards and also support California’s AB 32 goals to develop and implement programs to reduce GHG emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal achieved in 2016 as a result of numerous emissions reduction programs.
26 California Energy Commission. 2021. Final Commission Report: California Building Decarbonization Assessment.

Publication Number CEC-400-2021-006-CMF.August 27 CEC 2025 California Energy Code Fact Sheet, September 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 09/2025_California_Energy_Code_Fact_Sheet_ada.pdf

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1258
49 Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) is phase two of the original rule. ACC II establishes a year-byyear process, starting in 2026, so all new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zeroemission vehicles by 2035. The regulation codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20. Currently, 16 percent of new light-duty vehicles sold in California are zero emissions or plug-in hybrids. By 2030, 68 percent of new vehicles sold in California would be zero emissions and 100 percent by 2035.

City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan

The City of San Carlos General Plan 2045 includes policies and programs to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, TACs, and GHG emissions. The following policies and programs are applicable to the proposed project:

Policies
Policy EM-7.1: Take appropriate action to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Policy EM-7.6: 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 private sector shall be considered prior to the adoption of any GHG reduction strategy.

City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) In 2021, the City adopted a new Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.28 The CMAP aims to reduce emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels. This CMAP is an update to the 2009 Climate Action Plan (2009 CAP) that provides updated information, an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies, climate adaptation strategies and a planning horizon out to 2050. The following goals and strategies found in the CMAP are relevant to the NEASP:
- 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.
- Goal 2: Transition to carbon-free energy sources
28 City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan, URL:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/sancarlos/Document%20Center/City%20Hall/Departments%20And%20Divisions/City%20Manag er/Sustainability/Climate%20Action/CMAP%20Final.pdf

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1259
50 • Strategy 4: Electrification. Transition to electricity as the primary energy source citywide.
• Strategy 5: Building Codes. Advance electrification through local amendments to the California Building Code.
• Strategy 7: Peninsula Clean Energy. Continue to support and promote PCE as the community’s official electricity provider with a goal to provide 100 percent carbonfree renewable energy by 2025. - Goal 4: Promote sustainable development that reduces vehicle miles traveled. • Strategy 17: Vehicles Miles Traveled. Reduce community-wide transportationrelated 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.
- Goal 7: Become a zero-waste community
• Strategy 27: Construction and Demolition Waste. Increase the amount of waste recycled during construction and demolition of buildings.

In conjunction with existing local and state programs, the CMAP strategies provide a path to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by 49 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 by 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. This would exceed the City’s GHG reduction targets to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The CMAP also includes a Consistency Checklist for New Development that can be used to streamline the development of individual projects.

BAAD GHG Significance Thresholds
On April 20, 2022, BAAD adopted new thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for projects and Plans beginning the CEQA process. The following framework is how BAAD will determine GHG significance moving forward.29 Note BAAD intends that the thresholds apply to projects that begin the CEQA process after adoption of the thresholds, unless otherwise directed by the lead agency. The new thresholds of significance are:

Plan Level

1. Meet State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045; or:

2. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)
Project Level
A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
a. Buildings
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and non-residential development).
29 Justification Report: BAAD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Project and Plans. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds-2022/justification-reportpdf.pdf?la=en

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1260
51 ii. 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.
b. Transportation
i. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (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 in CEQA:

1. Residential Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita

2. Office Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee

3. Retail Projects: no net increase in existing VMT
ii. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Any new Plan or land use project would have to include either section A or B from the above list, not both, to be considered in compliance with BAAD’s GHG thresholds of significance.

Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Changes to GHG emissions associated with NEASP would occur from temporary construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker and vendor trips.

There would also be long-term changes to operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal. Changes to long term GHG emissions are discussed below.

CalEEMod Modeling
CalEEMod was used to predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build-out of the project, as well as the existing use of the site. The project land use types and size and other project-specific information were input to the model, as described above within the construction and operational period emissions. CalEEMod output is included in Attachment 1.

GHG Emissions
The CalEEMod model was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully developed site under the proposed project. For informational purposes, the increase in annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the Plan Area, shown in Table 14, is 28,664 MT of CO2e.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1261
52 Table 14. Annual NEASP GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category
Existing
Uses in
2024
Existing
Uses in
2045
Proposed
Uses in
2045
Existing
Uses to Be
Removed
NEASP
Build Out
in 2045
Mobile 19,693 16,125 28,794 2,151 42,768
Area 38 38 89 6 121
Energy Consumption 7,836 5,712 6,786 819 11,679
Water Usage 603 405 1,136 205 1,336
Solid Waste
Generation 2,133 2,133 1,058
182
3,010
Refrigeration 1,468 1,468 66 13 1,521
Total (MT
CO2e/year) 31,772 25,882 37,989 3,376 60,436
Net Increase over
2024 Existing (MT of
CO2e)

28,664
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 in NEASP because there will be more workers and residents in the area.

Redevelopment in the NEASP area would lead to an increase in vehicle emissions due to the increase in vehicle travel. While NEASP 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.

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 and commercial uses would be electrified as BAAD regulations will prohibit installation of new water and space heating systems that are natural gas-powered. These regulations will be phased in beginning 2027 but mainly apply to residential uses. 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.

To have less-than-significant GHG emissions, the NEASP must meet State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045 (Threshold 1) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy (Threshold 2). Projects within the Plan Area must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy (Threshold B) or meet the minimum project design elements recommended by BAAD (Threshold A). The City has adopted a CAP (Climate

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1262
53 Mitigation and Adaptation Plan) that meets the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Therefore, the NEASP meets the plan level GHG thresholds and would be have a less-thansignificant GHG impact. If projects within the Plan Area are in compliance with the City’s CMAP Consistency Checklist for New Development (included in Attachment 3), then the project would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions per BAAD GHG Threshold B.

However, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down Berkeley, California's natural gas ban via reach code in April 2023, and again in January 2024. The City, therefore, does not enforce portions of the reach codes requiring new development projects to be all electric powered.

As a result, projects that are developed with natural gas infrastructure would be considered to have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

BAAD has developed project level thresholds of significance for projects located in jurisdictions where a qualified Climate Action Plan or GHG reduction strategy is not adopted. These thresholds are intended to address the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions and attain carbon neutrality.

Impacts of the NEASP under the BAAD project thresholds A (see above), are described as follows:

1. Avoid construction of new natural gas connections for the residential building, x Since the City does not enforce the reach code, projects that propose natural gas infrastructure would be considered to have a significant impact.

2. Avoid wasteful or inefficient use of electricity,
x Project’s constructed under the Plan would meet CALGreen Building Standards Code requirements that are considered to be energy efficient.

3. Include electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets current Building Code CALGreen Tier 2 compliance.
x Projects constructed under the Plan are that meet the City’s CAP would include sufficient EV parking.

4. Reduce VMT per service population by 15 percent over regional average. x Daily VMT for build-out of the NEASP was screened out from VMT assessment as the entire plan is within a TPA.

Since projects constructed under the NEASP could be approved with natural gas infrastructure that emits GHG in conflict with the City’s CAP and BAAD project-level thresholds, the impact would be considered significant.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Ensure all new development meet City CAP and BAAD project-level thresholds.

NEASP projects shall meet the following measures:
x All new development projects within the NEASP would be required to be all electric.
x Projects that include natural gas appliances would have to enter into an agreement with the City to reduce GHG emissions equivalent to those emitted

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1263
54 by the Project’s natural gas appliances. Applicants would have to provide evidence to the City demonstrating that these emissions were properly identified and offset, prior to receiving any approval for construction (e.g., building permit).

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure GHG-1
With the implementation of ell electric infrastructure for new development, the Specific Plan and projects within the Specific Plan would be consistent with GHG thresholds and the impact would be less-than-significant.

Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project would not conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures identified in CARB’s Scoping Plan. The City of San Carlos has a CMAP and enforces its building codes, which aim to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, if individual projects conform to City building Codes, they will conform with the CAP and would not conflict with local plans, policies, or regulations applicable to GHG emissions. The proposed projects would be constructed in conformance with at minimum the 2022 CalGreen and the Title 24 Building Codes, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, and compliance with current energy efficiency standards. Compliance with these standards ensures compliance with State and federal plans, policies, and regulations applicable to GHG emissions.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1264
55 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Attachment 1 includes the CalEEMod output for project operational criteria air pollutants. Also included are any modeling assumptions.

Attachment 2 includes the health risk calculations, modeling results, and screening impacts from sources affecting the proposed future Specific Plan receptors.

Attachment 3 includes the San Carlos CMAP Consistency Checklist for New Development.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1265
Attachment 1: CalEEMod Modeling and Assumptions

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1266
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Year Year
Total 22.88 13.22 9.16 2.75 Total 20.31 9.29 9.10 2.69
Tons/year 22.88 13.22 9.16 2.75 Tons/year 20.31 9.29 9.10 2.69Threshold - Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Threshold - Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0Pounds Per Day 125.36 72.45 50.18 15.08 Pounds Per Day 111.31 50.90 49.84 14.74 Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0Category Category Project Project
Mobile 19693.25 Mobile 16125.36Area 38.38 Area 38.38Energy 7835.92 Energy 5711.90Water 602.86 Water 405.27Waste 2133.33 Waste 2133.33Refrig. 1468.11 Refrig. 1468.11TOTAL 31771.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 25882.34 0.00 0.00 0.00Net GHG Emissions 31771.85 0.00 Net GHG Emissions 25882.34 0.00 Tons
Average Daily Emissions
Existing 2045 Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
CO2e
Existing 2024 Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
CO2e
Tons
Net Annual Operational Emissions

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1267
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 3.05 1.29 1.22 0.36
Tons/year 3.05 1.29 1.22 0.36Threshold - Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0Pounds Per Day 16.71 7.07 6.68 1.99Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0Category Project
Mobile 2151.06Area 6.13Energy 818.83Water 204.87Waste 181.68Refrig. 13.08TOTAL 3375.65 0.00 0.00 0.00Net GHG Emissions 3375.65 0.00 Average Daily Emissions
CO2e
Existing to Be Removed 2045 Operational Criteria Air Pollutants Tons
Net Annual Operational Emissions

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1268
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 45.35 13.82 15.95 4.55
Tons/year 45.35 13.82 15.95 4.55Threshold - Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0Pounds Per Day 248.48 75.74 87.40 24.94Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0Category Project
Mobile 28793.95Area 88.79Energy 6785.70Water 1136.10Waste 1058.24Refrig. 66.20TOTAL 37928.98 0.00 0.00 0.00Net GHG Emissions 37928.98 0.00 Proposed 2045 Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Tons
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1269
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 62.61 21.82 23.83 6.88
Tons/year 62.61 21.82 23.83 6.88Threshold - Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0Pounds Per Day 343.08 119.57 130.57 37.69Threshold - lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0Category Full Build Out
Mobile 42768.25Area 121.05Energy 11678.77Water 1336.50Waste 3009.89Refrig. 1521.22TOTAL 60435.67 0.00 0.00 0.00Net GHG Emissions 60435.67 0.00 Full Build Out 2045 Operational Criteria Air Pollutants Tons
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1270
Land Use Size Daily Trips New Trips Weekday Trip Gen Weekday Sat Sun Existing
Research & Development ksf 400 4432 4432 11.08 11.26 1.9 1.11 Rev 1.87 1.09
General Heavy Industry ksf 1264 6156 6156 4.87 3.93 6.42 5.09 Rev 7.96 6.31
General Office Building ksf 151 1857 1857 12.30 9.74 2.21 0.7 Rev 2.79 0.88
Hospital ksf 425 4685 4685 11.024 10.72 7.72 6.77
Rev 7.939 6.962
Automobile Care Center ksf 41 978 978 23.85 23.72 23.72 11.88 Rev 23.85 11.95
Unrefrigerated Warehouseksf 234 400 400 1.71 1.74 1.74 1.74 Rev 1.71 1.71
Manufacturing ksf 104 494 494 4.75 3.93 6.42 5.09
Rev 7.76 6.15
Proposed
Research & Development ksf 2964 32841 19194 6.476 11.26 1.9 1.11 TDM Reduction 25% -13647 Rev 1.093 0.638
General Heavy Industry ksf 700 3409 3409 4.87 3.93 6.42 5.09 Rev 7.96 6.31
General Office Building ksf 180 1951 1951 10.84 9.74 2.21 0.7 Rev 2.46 0.78
Regional Shopping Center ksf 80 5402 5402 67.53 37.75 46.12 21.1 Rev 82.50 37.74
Apartments Mid Rise DU 1890 8581 8581 4.540 5.44 4.91 4.09 Rev 4.098 3.414
Unrefrigerated Warehouseksf 40 68 68 1.70 1.74 1.74 1.74 Rev 1.70 1.70
Manufacturing ksf 492 2337 2337 4.75 3.93 6.42 5.09
Rev 7.76 6.15
Existing to Be Removed
General Heavy Industry ksf 303 1476 1476 4.87 3.93 6.42 5.09 Rev 7.96 6.31
General Office Building ksf 45 488 488 10.84 9.74 2.21 0.7 Rev 2.46 0.78
Hospital (Animal Hospital/Vksf 10 215 215 21.50 10.72 7.72 6.77 Rev 15.48 13.58
Unrefrigerated Warehouseksf 60 103 103 1.72 1.74 1.74 1.74 Rev 1.72 1.72
Traffic Consultant Trip Gen CalEEMod Default
- Existing
- R&D 760 400 !m 4,432
light Industrial 110 1,264 kfil 6,156
- General Office 710 58 !s.§1 629
Hospital 610 415 ~ 4,470
- Automobile Sates 840 27 ~ 752
Automobile Care Center 942 14 ~ 226
- Animal
HospltalNeterlnary 640 10 ~ 215
Clinic
- Small Office Building 712 9 I!§! 130
Single Tenant Office 715 84 !ta! 1,098
- Building
Warehousing 150 234 ~ 400
Manufacturing 140 104 !l§! 494
- EXISTING TRIPS 19,001
- T~bi.16 Trip Gener.rtion, Full NEASP Buildout
- R&O 700 2,964 "' 3,053 2,503 550 2,905 "' 2,440 32,841 - llght lndustnal 110 700 "' 518 456 62 455 64 391 3.409 "'"""Office 710 180 "' 274 2'1 33 259 215 1,951
- Retail 821 80 .,, 139 86 53 415 203 212 5,402
Residenbal(Mf 226 f,800 ..., 899 181 538 737 450 287 8,581 MKI-Rise) - Warehouq 150 40 .,, 88
Manufaciumg 140 492 .,, 334 254 80 381 113 248 2,337
- GROSS PLAN VEHICLE TRIPS 5,024 3,706 1,318 5,139 1,341 3,798 "·"' TOM REDUCTION (25%) (1 ,257) (927) (330) (1 ,285) (335) (950) (13,647) SUBTOTAL PROJECT TRIPS 3,767 2,n9 988 3,854 '·"" 2,848 40,942 - ExltUngtober9mOVed
Llght lndustnal 110 >33 .,, (224) (197) (27) {197) ~8) (169) {1,476) """'"°"" 710 45 "' (68) (60) (8) (65) (11) (54) (488)
AnrmalHospilaio' 640 10 .,, (38) (24) (12) (35) (14) (2 1) (215) - VetennaryClriic:

WarehouSIOQ 150 60 "' (10) (8) (2) (11) (3) (8) (103)
EXISTING TRIPS TO BE REMOVED (338) (289} (49) (,0,) (56) (252) (2,282) - NET PLAN VEHICLE TRIPS 3,429 2,490 939 3,548 950 2,596 38,660 "°"'
• Individual parcels' uses are rouoded to nearesl KSF lo generale square lootage5 • Plan area lotal ~ geoeraboo a,e rounded lo lhe nea1est top for e!ICh land use - • ITE lnp generation u~ed average rates, general urban conlexl, and N.\IPM peak hour of ad,-il sir eel traffic

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1271
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 1 / 35
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Proposed 204
5 10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1272
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 2 / 35

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1273
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 3 / 35

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1274
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 4 / 35

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1275
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 5 / 35

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1276
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 6 / 35

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name 23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045Operational Year 2045Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 4.70Precipitation (days) 3.20Location San Carlos, CA, USACounty San MateoCity San CarlosAir District Bay Area AQMDAir Basin San Francisco Bay AreaTAZ 1258EDFZ 1Electric Utility Peninsula Clean EnergyGas Utility Pacific Gas & ElectricApp Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
Research &Development
2,964 1000sqft 68.0 2,964,000 0.00 — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1277
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 7 / 35
—
—
— 0.00 700,000 16.1 1000sqft 700 General Heavy
Industry
General OfficeBuilding
180 1000sqft 4.13 180,000 0.00 — — —
Regional ShoppingCenter

80.0 1000sqft 1.84 80,000 0.00 — — —
Apartments MidRise
1,890 Dwelling Unit 49.7 1,814,400 0.00 — 5,443 —
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail

40.0 1000sqft 0.92 40,000 0.00 — — —
Manufacturing 492 1000sqft 11.3 492,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions SectorNo measures selected2. Emissions Summary2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Unmit. 292 83.1 3.72 109 113 3.58 28.2 31.8 291,027Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Unmit. 250 89.5 3.33 109 113 3.28 28.2 31.5 279,916Average Daily(Max) —————————
Unmit. 248 75.7 3.36 84.0 87.4 3.27 21.7 24.9 229,093Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —Unmit. 45.3 13.8 0.61 15.3 16.0 0.60 3.96 4.55 37,929

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1278
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 8 / 35

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Mobile 94.8 46.2 0.72 109 110 0.68 28.2 28.9 235,300Area 195 2.62 0.39 — 0.39 0.30 — 0.30 1,088Energy 1.88 34.3 2.60 — 2.60 2.60 — 2.60 40,986Water — — — — — — — — 6,862Waste — — — — — — — — 6,392Refrig. — — — — — — — — 400Total 292 83.1 3.72 109 113 3.58 28.2 31.8 291,027Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Mobile 93.9 55.3 0.72 109 110 0.68 28.2 28.9 225,277Area 154 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00Energy 1.88 34.3 2.60 — 2.60 2.60 — 2.60 40,986Water — — — — — — — — 6,862Waste — — — — — — — — 6,392Refrig. — — — — — — — — 400Total 250 89.5 3.33 109 113 3.28 28.2 31.5 279,916Average Daily —————————Mobile 72.4 40.2 0.56 84.0 84.6 0.52 21.7 22.2 173,917Area 174 1.29 0.19 — 0.19 0.15 — 0.15 536Energy 1.88 34.3 2.60 — 2.60 2.60 — 2.60 40,986Water — — — — — — — — 6,862Waste — — — — — — — — 6,392Refrig. — — — — — — — — 400

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1279
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 9 / 35
Total 248 75.7 3.36 84.0 87.4 3.27 21.7 24.9 229,093
Annual — — — — — — — — —Mobile 13.2 7.34 0.10 15.3 15.4 0.10 3.96 4.05 28,794Area 31.8 0.24 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 88.8Energy 0.34 6.25 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 6,786Water — — — — — — — — 1,136Waste — — — — — — — — 1,058Refrig. — — — — — — — — 66.2Total 45.3 13.8 0.61 15.3 16.0 0.60 3.96 4.55 37,929

4. Operations Emissions Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development

40.9 20.9 0.34 51.8 52.2 0.32 13.4 13.7 111,145
General HeavyIndustry

11.9 6.08 0.10 15.0 15.1 0.09 3.88 3.97 32,264
General OfficeBuilding

4.15 2.13 0.03 5.27 5.30 0.03 1.36 1.39 11,298
RegionalShopping Center

12.4 4.86 0.06 8.88 8.94 0.06 2.29 2.35 19,543
Apartments MidRise

17.3 7.96 0.12 17.8 18.0 0.11 4.60 4.71 38,549

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1280
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 10 / 35
394 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.07 0.14 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-NoRail
Manufacturing 8.13 4.17 0.07 10.3 10.4 0.06 2.66 2.72 22,107Total 94.8 46.2 0.72 109 110 0.68 28.2 28.9 235,300Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development

40.4 25.0 0.34 51.8 52.2 0.32 13.4 13.7 106,381
General HeavyIndustry

11.7 7.27 0.10 15.0 15.1 0.09 3.88 3.97 30,881
General OfficeBuilding

4.11 2.55 0.03 5.27 5.30 0.03 1.36 1.39 10,814
RegionalShopping Center

12.3 5.80 0.06 8.88 8.94 0.06 2.29 2.35 18,744
Apartments MidRise

17.1 9.52 0.12 17.8 18.0 0.11 4.60 4.71 36,920
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.14 0.09 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 377
Manufacturing 8.04 4.98 0.07 10.3 10.4 0.06 2.66 2.72 21,160Total 93.9 55.3 0.72 109 110 0.68 28.2 28.9 225,277Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development

5.49 3.23 0.05 7.10 7.15 0.04 1.83 1.88 13,282
General HeavyIndustry

1.47 0.86 0.01 1.90 1.91 0.01 0.49 0.50 3,551
General OfficeBuilding

0.56 0.33 < 0.005 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 1,358
RegionalShopping Center

1.73 0.76 0.01 1.18 1.19 0.01 0.30 0.31 2,283
Apartments MidRise

2.93 1.55 0.02 3.09 3.11 0.02 0.80 0.82 5,823

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1281
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 11 / 35

62.5 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-NoRail
Manufacturing 1.01 0.59 0.01 1.30 1.31 0.01 0.34 0.34 2,434Total 13.2 7.34 0.10 15.3 15.4 0.10 3.96 4.05 28,794

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 0.00Total — — — — — — — — 0.00Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 0.00

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1282
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 12 / 35

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— General Heavy
Industry
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 0.00Total — — — — — — — — 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 0.00
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 0.00Total — — — — — — — — 0.00

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1283
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 13 / 35
Daily, Summer(Max)
—————————
Research &Development

1.04 18.9 1.44 — 1.44 1.44 — 1.44 22,623
General HeavyIndustry

0.45 8.23 0.63 — 0.63 0.63 — 0.63 9,851
General OfficeBuilding

0.06 1.15 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 1,374
RegionalShopping Center

0.01 0.12 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 147
Apartments MidRise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
< 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 67.5
Manufacturing 0.32 5.79 0.44 — 0.44 0.44 — 0.44 6,924Total 1.88 34.3 2.60 — 2.60 2.60 — 2.60 40,986Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development

1.04 18.9 1.44 — 1.44 1.44 — 1.44 22,623
General HeavyIndustry

0.45 8.23 0.63 — 0.63 0.63 — 0.63 9,851
General OfficeBuilding

0.06 1.15 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 1,374
RegionalShopping Center

0.01 0.12 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 147
Apartments MidRise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
< 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 67.5
Manufacturing 0.32 5.79 0.44 — 0.44 0.44 — 0.44 6,924Total 1.88 34.3 2.60 — 2.60 2.60 — 2.60 40,986

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1284
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 14 / 35
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Research &Development

0.19 3.45 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 3,746
General HeavyIndustry

0.08 1.50 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 1,631
General OfficeBuilding

0.01 0.21 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 227
RegionalShopping Center
< 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 24.3
Apartments MidRise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
< 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 11.2
Manufacturing 0.06 1.06 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 1,146Total 0.34 6.25 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 6,786

4.3. Area Emissions by Source4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00ConsumerProducts 134 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

19.7 — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

41.2 2.62 0.39 — 0.39 0.30 — 0.30 1,088
Total 195 2.62 0.39 — 0.39 0.30 — 0.30 1,088

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1285
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 15 / 35
Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00ConsumerProducts 134 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

19.7 — — — — — — — —
Total 154 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — —Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00ConsumerProducts

24.5 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

3.60 — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

3.71 0.24 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 88.8
Total 31.8 0.24 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 88.8

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 5,409
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 601
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 119

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1286
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 16 / 35

22.0 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Regional
Shopping Center
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 254
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 34.3
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 422Total — — — — — — — — 6,862Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 5,409
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 601
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 119
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 22.0
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 254
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 34.3
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 422Total — — — — — — — — 6,862Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 896
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 99.5
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 19.7

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1287
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 17 / 35

3.64 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Regional
Shopping Center
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 42.1
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 5.68
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 69.9Total — — — — — — — — 1,136

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 425
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 1,637
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 316
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 158
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 2,635
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 70.9
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 1,150Total — — — — — — — — 6,392

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1288
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 18 / 35
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Daily, Winter
(Max)
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 425
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 1,637
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 316
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 158
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 2,635
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 70.9
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 1,150Total — — — — — — — — 6,392Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 70.3
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 271
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 52.3
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 26.2
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 436
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 11.7
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 190Total — — — — — — — — 1,058

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1289
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 19 / 35

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 75.7
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 182
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.44
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 0.38
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 13.0
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 128Total — — — — — — — — 400Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 75.7
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 182
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.44
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 0.38
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 13.0
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 128Total — — — — — — — — 400

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1290
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 20 / 35
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 12.5
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 30.2
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.07
RegionalShopping Center
— — — — — — — — 0.06
Apartments MidRise
— — — — — — — — 2.15
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 21.2Total — — — — — — — — 66.2

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. Unmitigated

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1291
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 21 / 35
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1292
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 22 / 35
Daily, Summer(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1293
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 23 / 35
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Annual — — — — — — — — —Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————

5. Activity Data5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearResearch &Development 19,195 3,240 1,891 5,271,904 172,288 29,078 16,973 47,319,226

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1294
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 24 / 35
General HeavyIndustry
3,409 5,572 4,417 1,409,630 30,598 50,013 39,646 12,652,469 General OfficeBuilding
1,951 443 140 539,115 17,513 3,974 1,260 4,838,959
Regional ShoppingCenter
5,402 6,600 3,019 1,910,055 21,605 29,511 13,500 7,875,529 Apartments MidRise
8,581 7,745 6,452 2,977,393 59,290 53,518 44,585 20,573,050 UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail

68.0 68.0 68.0 24,820 610 610 610 222,778
Manufacturing 2,337 3,818 3,026 966,140 20,976 34,269 27,159 8,671,823

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)Apartments Mid Rise
—
Wood Fireplaces 0Gas Fireplaces 0Propane Fireplaces 0Electric Fireplaces 0No Fireplaces 0Conventional Wood Stoves 0Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1295
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 25 / 35
Residential Interior Area Coated (sqft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
3674160 1,224,720 6,684,000 2,228,000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Research & Development 62,743,829 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 70,395,860General Heavy Industry 7,637,103 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 30,652,374General Office Building 3,810,354 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 4,275,052Regional Shopping Center 683,598 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 455,886Apartments Mid Rise 11,324,255 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00Unrefrigerated Warehouse-NoRail 400,713 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 210,171
Manufacturing 5,367,792 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 21,544,240

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Research & Development 1,457,380,860 0.00General Heavy Industry 161,875,000 0.00

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1296
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 26 / 35
General Office Building 31,992,075 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 5,925,802 0.00Apartments Mid Rise 68,543,496 0.00Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 9,250,000 0.00Manufacturing 113,775,000 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Research & Development 225 —General Heavy Industry 868 —General Office Building 167 —Regional Shopping Center 84.0 —Apartments Mid Rise 1,398 —Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 37.6 —Manufacturing 610 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedResearch &Development Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Research &Development
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
General HeavyIndustry
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1297
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 27 / 35

1.00 0.00 0.60 0.02 1,430 R-134a General Office
Building
Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
General OfficeBuilding
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional ShoppingCenter
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional ShoppingCenter
Stand-alone retailrefrigerators andfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Manufacturing Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1298
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 28 / 35

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location UnitTemperature and Extreme Heat 9.23 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 4.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1299
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 29 / 35
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 13.4 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures fromobserved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall ifreceived over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), andconsider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled withextreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 metersWildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical dataof climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1300
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 30 / 35
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 1112 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractExposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 6.38AQ-PM 18.7AQ-DPM 77.9Drinking Water 11.4Lead Risk Housing 60.4Pesticides 0.00Toxic Releases 26.9Traffic 55.0Effect Indicators —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1301
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 31 / 35
CleanUp Sites 71.9
Groundwater 95.9Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 88.9Impaired Water Bodies 0.00Solid Waste 22.1Sensitive Population —
Asthma 11.7Cardio-vascular 13.3Low Birth Weights 74.9Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 24.1Housing 21.6Linguistic 36.0Poverty 23.9Unemployment 25.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index ScoresThe maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractEconomic
—
Above Poverty 72.1416656Employed 91.08174002Median HI 71.96201719Education —
Bachelor's or higher 83.65199538High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 82.71525728Transportation —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1302
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 32 / 35
Auto Access 55.28037983
Active commuting 71.05094315Social
—
2-parent households 19.08122674Voting 87.46310792Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 19.2865392Park access 81.35506224Retail density 83.10021814Supermarket access 65.10971385Tree canopy 87.27062749Housing —
Homeownership 20.18478121Housing habitability 66.13627615Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 70.11420506Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 76.20941871Uncrowded housing 77.4541255Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 70.78147055Arthritis 0.0Asthma ER Admissions 79.6High Blood Pressure 0.0Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0Asthma 0.0Coronary Heart Disease 0.0Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0Life Expectancy at Birth 89.3

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1303
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 33 / 35
Cognitively Disabled 70.6
Physically Disabled 80.2Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.2Mental Health Not Good 0.0Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0Obesity 0.0Pedestrian Injuries 19.6Physical Health Not Good 0.0Stroke 0.0Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0Current Smoker 0.0No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 0.0SLR Inundation Area 0.0Children 50.1Elderly 38.5English Speaking 45.4Foreign-born 57.9Outdoor Workers 75.9Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 41.3Traffic Density 46.5Traffic Access 87.4Other Indices —
Hardship 11.1Other Decision Support
—

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1304
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 34 / 35
2016 Voting 91.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 26.0Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 83.0Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.7.4. Health & Equity MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.8. User Changes to Default Data Screen JustificationCharacteristics: Utility Information Peninsula Clean Energy is San Carlos default clean energy provider. CalEEMod 2045 forecasted factor used.

Operations: Vehicle Data Provided trip gen with reduction adjustments for TDM.Operations: Hearths No hearths.Operations: Energy Use No natural gas for residential uses. Convert natural gas to electricity. All other uses stay as natural gas.

Operations: Water and Waste Water Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1305
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Proposed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 35 / 35
Operations: Road Dust Silt loading factor = 0.0357.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1306
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 1 / 34
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Existin
g 2024

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1307
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 2 / 34

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1308
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 3 / 34

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1309
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 4 / 34

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1310
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 5 / 34

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1311
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 6 / 34

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name 23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024Operational Year 2024Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 4.70Precipitation (days) 3.20Location San Carlos, CA, USACounty San MateoCity San CarlosAir District Bay Area AQMDAir Basin San Francisco Bay AreaTAZ 1258EDFZ 1Electric Utility Peninsula Clean EnergyGas Utility Pacific Gas & ElectricApp Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
Research &Development
400 1000sqft 9.18 400,000 0.00 — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1312
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 7 / 34
—
—
— 0.00 1,264,000 29.0 1000sqft 1,264 General Heavy
Industry
General OfficeBuilding
151 1000sqft 3.47 151,000 0.00 — — —
Hospital 425 1000sqft 9.76 425,000 0.00 — — —Automobile CareCenter

41.0 1000sqft 0.94 41,000 0.00 — — —
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail
234 1000sqft 5.37 234,000 0.00 — — —
Manufacturing 104 1000sqft 2.39 104,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions SectorNo measures selected2. Emissions Summary2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Unmit. 153 80.9 3.32 62.6 65.9 3.21 16.1 19.3 237,813Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Unmit. 133 89.1 3.12 62.6 65.7 3.05 16.1 19.2 229,687Average Daily(Max) —————————
Unmit. 125 72.4 2.99 47.2 50.2 2.92 12.2 15.1 191,904Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —Unmit. 22.9 13.2 0.55 8.61 9.16 0.53 2.22 2.75 31,772

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1313
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 8 / 34

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Mobile 69.1 51.1 0.92 62.6 63.6 0.86 16.1 17.0 164,619Area 82.2 0.96 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 470Energy 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 47,329Water — — — — — — — — 3,641Waste — — — — — — — — 12,885Refrig. — — — — — — — — 8,867Total 153 80.9 3.32 62.6 65.9 3.21 16.1 19.3 237,813Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Mobile 67.8 60.3 0.93 62.6 63.6 0.86 16.1 17.0 156,963Area 63.5 — — — — — — — —Energy 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 47,329Water — — — — — — — — 3,641Waste — — — — — — — — 12,885Refrig. — — — — — — — — 8,867Total 133 89.1 3.12 62.6 65.7 3.05 16.1 19.2 229,687Average Daily —————————Mobile 51.0 43.1 0.70 47.2 47.9 0.65 12.2 12.8 118,948Area 72.7 0.47 0.10 — 0.10 0.08 — 0.08 232Energy 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 47,329Water — — — — — — — — 3,641Waste — — — — — — — — 12,885Refrig. — — — — — — — — 8,867

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1314
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 9 / 34
Total 125 72.4 2.99 47.2 50.2 2.92 12.2 15.1 191,904
Annual — — — — — — — — —Mobile 9.31 7.87 0.13 8.61 8.74 0.12 2.22 2.34 19,693Area 13.3 0.09 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 38.4Energy 0.29 5.26 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 7,836Water — — — — — — — — 603Waste — — — — — — — — 2,133Refrig. — — — — — — — — 1,468Total 22.9 13.2 0.55 8.61 9.16 0.53 2.22 2.75 31,772

4. Operations Emissions Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development

13.2 9.75 0.18 12.0 12.1 0.16 3.08 3.25 31,422
General HeavyIndustry

29.9 22.1 0.40 27.1 27.5 0.37 6.99 7.37 71,333
General OfficeBuilding

5.53 4.09 0.07 5.01 5.08 0.07 1.29 1.36 13,168
Hospital 13.9 10.3 0.19 12.6 12.8 0.17 3.26 3.43 33,205Automobile CareCenter

2.91 2.15 0.04 2.64 2.68 0.04 0.68 0.72 6,933
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

1.19 0.88 0.02 1.08 1.10 0.01 0.28 0.29 2,837

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1315
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 10 / 34
Manufacturing 2.40 1.78 0.03 2.18 2.21 0.03 0.56 0.59 5,722 Total 69.1 51.1 0.92 62.6 63.6 0.86 16.1 17.0 164,619Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development

12.9 11.5 0.18 12.0 12.1 0.16 3.08 3.25 29,961
General HeavyIndustry

29.4 26.1 0.40 27.1 27.5 0.37 6.99 7.37 68,016
General OfficeBuilding

5.43 4.82 0.07 5.01 5.08 0.07 1.29 1.36 12,555
Hospital 13.7 12.2 0.19 12.6 12.8 0.17 3.26 3.43 31,661Automobile CareCenter

2.86 2.54 0.04 2.64 2.68 0.04 0.68 0.72 6,610
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

1.17 1.04 0.02 1.08 1.10 0.01 0.28 0.29 2,705
Manufacturing 2.36 2.10 0.03 2.18 2.21 0.03 0.56 0.59 5,456Total 67.8 60.3 0.93 62.6 63.6 0.86 16.1 17.0 156,963Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development

1.75 1.49 0.02 1.64 1.66 0.02 0.42 0.44 3,745
General HeavyIndustry

3.66 3.12 0.05 3.43 3.48 0.05 0.88 0.93 7,832
General OfficeBuilding

0.74 0.63 0.01 0.69 0.70 0.01 0.18 0.19 1,579
Hospital 2.23 1.90 0.03 2.09 2.12 0.03 0.54 0.57 4,773Automobile CareCenter

0.44 0.31 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 686
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.21 0.18 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 449
Manufacturing 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.27 0.28 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 628Total 9.31 7.87 0.13 8.61 8.74 0.12 2.22 2.34 19,693

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1316
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 11 / 34

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 2,366
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 3,854
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 893
Hospital — — — — — — — — 4,619Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 125
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 655
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 317Total — — — — — — — — 12,829Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 2,366
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 3,854
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 893
Hospital — — — — — — — — 4,619Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 125

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1317
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 12 / 34
655
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-NoRail
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 317Total — — — — — — — — 12,829Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 392
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 638
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 148
Hospital — — — — — — — — 765Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 20.7
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 108
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 52.5Total — — — — — — — — 2,124

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development

0.14 2.55 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 3,053
General HeavyIndustry

0.82 14.9 1.13 — 1.13 1.13 — 1.13 17,788
General OfficeBuilding

0.05 0.96 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,153
Hospital 0.46 8.42 0.64 — 0.64 0.64 — 0.64 10,071

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1318
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 13 / 34
Automobile CareCenter

0.03 0.48 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 577
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.02 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 395
Manufacturing 0.07 1.22 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 1,464Total 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development

0.14 2.55 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 3,053
General HeavyIndustry

0.82 14.9 1.13 — 1.13 1.13 — 1.13 17,788
General OfficeBuilding

0.05 0.96 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,153
Hospital 0.46 8.42 0.64 — 0.64 0.64 — 0.64 10,071Automobile CareCenter

0.03 0.48 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 577
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.02 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 395
Manufacturing 0.07 1.22 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 1,464Total 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development

0.03 0.47 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 505
General HeavyIndustry

0.15 2.71 0.21 — 0.21 0.21 — 0.21 2,945
General OfficeBuilding

0.01 0.18 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 191
Hospital 0.08 1.54 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 1,667Automobile CareCenter < 0.005 0.09 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 95.5

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1319
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 14 / 34

65.4 < 0.005
— < 0.005 < 0.005
— < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-NoRail
Manufacturing 0.01 0.22 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 242Total 0.29 5.26 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 5,712

4.3. Area Emissions by Source4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
ConsumerProducts

56.0 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

7.49 — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

18.7 0.96 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 470
Total 82.2 0.96 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 470Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
ConsumerProducts

56.0 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

7.49 — — — — — — — —
Total 63.5 — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —ConsumerProducts

10.2 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

1.37 — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1320
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 15 / 34
LandscapeEquipment

1.68 0.09 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 38.4
Total 13.3 0.09 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 38.4

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 1,086
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 1,614
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 148
Hospital — — — — — — — — 294Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 21.3
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 299
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 179Total — — — — — — — — 3,641Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 1,086
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 1,614
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 148

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1321
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 16 / 34
Hospital — — — — — — — — 294
Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 21.3
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 299
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 179Total — — — — — — — — 3,641Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 180
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 267
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 24.5
Hospital — — — — — — — — 48.8Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 3.53
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 49.5
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 29.6Total — — — — — — — — 603

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1322
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 17 / 34

57.3 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Research &
Development
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 2,955
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 265
Hospital — — — — — — — — 8,655Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 295
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 415
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 243Total — — — — — — — — 12,885Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 57.3
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 2,955
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 265
Hospital — — — — — — — — 8,655Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 295
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 415
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 243Total — — — — — — — — 12,885Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 9.49

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1323
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 18 / 34
489
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— General Heavy
Industry
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 43.8
Hospital — — — — — — — — 1,433Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 48.9
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 68.7
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 40.3Total — — — — — — — — 2,133

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 10.2
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 329
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.37
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.67Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 8,500
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 27.1Total — — — — — — — — 8,867

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1324
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 19 / 34
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Daily, Winter
(Max)
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 10.2
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 329
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.37
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.67Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 8,500
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 27.1Total — — — — — — — — 8,867Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 1.69
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 54.5
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.06
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.11Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 1,407
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 4.48Total — — — — — — — — 1,468

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1325
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 20 / 34
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Daily, Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1326
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 21 / 34
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1327
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 22 / 34
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Annual — — — — — — — — —Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1328
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 23 / 34
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————

5. Activity Data5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearResearch &Development 4,432 748 436 1,217,223 39,780 6,714 3,913 10,925,473
General HeavyIndustry
6,156 10,061 7,976 2,545,389 55,252 90,309 71,589 22,846,744 General OfficeBuilding
1,857 421 133 513,121 16,671 3,781 1,193 4,605,636
Hospital 4,683 3,374 2,958 1,551,250 42,038 30,289 26,550 13,923,613Automobile CareCenter 978 978 490 331,475 4,932 8,777 4,398 1,972,765
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail
400 400 400 146,051 3,592 3,592 3,592 1,310,916
Manufacturing 494 807 640 204,225 4,434 7,244 5,741 1,833,068

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1329
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 24 / 34
Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
0 0.00 3,928,500 1,309,500 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Research & Development 8,467,453 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 9,500,116General Heavy Industry 13,790,425 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 55,349,430General Office Building 3,196,464 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 3,586,294Hospital 16,528,048 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 31,337,263Automobile Care Center 447,316 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 1,795,353Unrefrigerated Warehouse-NoRail 2,344,168 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 1,229,500
Manufacturing 1,134,655 100.0 0.0330 0.0040 4,554,067

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Research & Development 196,677,579 0.00General Heavy Industry 292,300,000 0.00

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1330
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 25 / 34
General Office Building 26,837,796 0.00
Hospital 53,329,228 0.00Automobile Care Center 3,857,325 0.00Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 54,112,500 0.00Manufacturing 32,375,000 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Research & Development 30.4 —General Heavy Industry 1,567 —General Office Building 140 —Hospital 4,590 —Automobile Care Center 157 —Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 220 —Manufacturing 129 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedResearch &Development Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Research &Development
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
General HeavyIndustry
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1331
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 26 / 34

1.00 0.00 0.60 0.02 1,430 R-134a General Office
Building
Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
General OfficeBuilding
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hospital Chillers R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 2.00 2.00 23.0Hospital Household refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hospital Stand-alone retail
refrigerators andfreezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Hospital Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Automobile CareCenter
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Automobile CareCenter
Supermarketrefrigeration andcondensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Manufacturing Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1332
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 27 / 34

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1333
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 28 / 34
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 9.23 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 4.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mmSea Level Rise — meters of inundation depthWildfire 13.4 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures fromobserved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall ifreceived over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), andconsider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled withextreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 metersWildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical dataof climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1334
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 29 / 34

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 1112 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractExposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 6.38AQ-PM 18.7AQ-DPM 77.9Drinking Water 11.4Lead Risk Housing 60.4

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1335
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 30 / 34
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 26.9Traffic 55.0Effect Indicators
—
CleanUp Sites 71.9Groundwater 95.9Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 88.9Impaired Water Bodies 0.00Solid Waste 22.1Sensitive Population —
Asthma 11.7Cardio-vascular 13.3Low Birth Weights 74.9Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 24.1Housing 21.6Linguistic 36.0Poverty 23.9Unemployment 25.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index ScoresThe maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractEconomic
—
Above Poverty 72.1416656Employed 91.08174002Median HI 71.96201719Education —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1336
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 31 / 34
Bachelor's or higher 83.65199538
High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 82.71525728Transportation —
Auto Access 55.28037983Active commuting 71.05094315Social —
2-parent households 19.08122674Voting 87.46310792Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 19.2865392Park access 81.35506224Retail density 83.10021814Supermarket access 65.10971385Tree canopy 87.27062749Housing —
Homeownership 20.18478121Housing habitability 66.13627615Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 70.11420506Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 76.20941871Uncrowded housing 77.4541255Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 70.78147055Arthritis 0.0Asthma ER Admissions 79.6High Blood Pressure 0.0Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0Asthma 0.0

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1337
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 32 / 34
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0Life Expectancy at Birth 89.3Cognitively Disabled 70.6Physically Disabled 80.2Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.2Mental Health Not Good 0.0Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0Obesity 0.0Pedestrian Injuries 19.6Physical Health Not Good 0.0Stroke 0.0Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0Current Smoker 0.0No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 0.0SLR Inundation Area 0.0Children 50.1Elderly 38.5English Speaking 45.4Foreign-born 57.9Outdoor Workers 75.9Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 41.3Traffic Density 46.5

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1338
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 33 / 34
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices
—
Hardship 11.1Other Decision Support
—
2016 Voting 91.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 26.0Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 83.0Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.7.4. Health & Equity MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.8. User Changes to Default Data Screen JustificationCharacteristics: Utility Information San Carlos default clean energy provider is Peninsula Clean Energy.Operations: Vehicle Data Provided trip gen.Operations: Water and Waste Water Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1339
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2024 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 34 / 34
Operations: Road Dust Silt loading factor = 0.0357

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1340
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 1 / 34
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Existin
g 2045

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1341
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 2 / 34

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1342
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 3 / 34

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1343
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 4 / 34

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1344
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 5 / 34

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1345
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 6 / 34

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name 23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045Operational Year 2045Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 4.70Precipitation (days) 3.20Location San Carlos, CA, USACounty San MateoCity San CarlosAir District Bay Area AQMDAir Basin San Francisco Bay AreaTAZ 1258EDFZ 1Electric Utility Peninsula Clean EnergyGas Utility Pacific Gas & ElectricApp Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
Research &Development
400 1000sqft 9.18 400,000 0.00 — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1346
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 7 / 34
—
—
— 0.00 1,264,000 29.0 1000sqft 1,264 General Heavy
Industry
General OfficeBuilding
151 1000sqft 3.47 151,000 0.00 — — —
Hospital 425 1000sqft 9.76 425,000 0.00 — — —Automobile CareCenter

41.0 1000sqft 0.94 41,000 0.00 — — —
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail
234 1000sqft 5.37 234,000 0.00 — — —
Manufacturing 104 1000sqft 2.39 104,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions SectorNo measures selected2. Emissions Summary2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Unmit. 133 55.1 2.80 62.7 65.5 2.73 16.2 18.9 193,628Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Unmit. 114 59.1 2.60 62.7 65.3 2.57 16.2 18.7 187,395Average Daily(Max) —————————
Unmit. 111 50.9 2.60 47.2 49.8 2.56 12.2 14.7 156,331Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —Unmit. 20.3 9.29 0.47 8.62 9.10 0.47 2.22 2.69 25,882

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1347
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 8 / 34

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Mobile 49.4 25.3 0.41 62.7 63.1 0.38 16.2 16.6 134,457Area 82.3 0.96 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 470Energy 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Water — — — — — — — — 2,448Waste — — — — — — — — 12,885Refrig. — — — — — — — — 8,867Total 133 55.1 2.80 62.7 65.5 2.73 16.2 18.9 193,628Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Mobile 48.9 30.3 0.41 62.7 63.1 0.38 16.2 16.6 128,695Area 63.5 — — — — — — — —Energy 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Water — — — — — — — — 2,448Waste — — — — — — — — 12,885Refrig. — — — — — — — — 8,867Total 114 59.1 2.60 62.7 65.3 2.57 16.2 18.7 187,395Average Daily —————————Mobile 37.0 21.6 0.31 47.2 47.6 0.29 12.2 12.5 97,398Area 72.8 0.47 0.10 — 0.10 0.08 — 0.08 232Energy 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Water — — — — — — — — 2,448Waste — — — — — — — — 12,885Refrig. — — — — — — — — 8,867

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1348
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 9 / 34
Total 111 50.9 2.60 47.2 49.8 2.56 12.2 14.7 156,331
Annual — — — — — — — — —Mobile 6.75 3.94 0.06 8.62 8.68 0.05 2.22 2.28 16,125Area 13.3 0.09 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 38.4Energy 0.29 5.26 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 5,712Water — — — — — — — — 405Waste — — — — — — — — 2,133Refrig. — — — — — — — — 1,468Total 20.3 9.29 0.47 8.62 9.10 0.47 2.22 2.69 25,882

4. Operations Emissions Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development

9.44 4.84 0.08 12.0 12.0 0.07 3.09 3.16 25,663
General HeavyIndustry

21.4 11.0 0.18 27.2 27.3 0.17 7.01 7.17 58,259
General OfficeBuilding

3.95 2.03 0.03 5.02 5.05 0.03 1.29 1.32 10,754
Hospital 9.98 5.11 0.08 12.7 12.7 0.08 3.26 3.34 27,129Automobile CareCenter

2.08 1.07 0.02 2.64 2.66 0.02 0.68 0.70 5,662
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.85 0.44 0.01 1.08 1.09 0.01 0.28 0.29 2,317

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1349
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 10 / 34
Manufacturing 1.72 0.88 0.01 2.18 2.19 0.01 0.56 0.58 4,673 Total 49.4 25.3 0.41 62.7 63.1 0.38 16.2 16.6 134,457Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development

9.33 5.78 0.08 12.0 12.0 0.07 3.09 3.16 24,563
General HeavyIndustry

21.2 13.1 0.18 27.2 27.3 0.17 7.01 7.17 55,762
General OfficeBuilding

3.91 2.42 0.03 5.02 5.05 0.03 1.29 1.32 10,293
Hospital 9.87 6.11 0.08 12.7 12.7 0.08 3.26 3.34 25,966Automobile CareCenter

2.06 1.28 0.02 2.64 2.66 0.02 0.68 0.70 5,419
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.84 0.52 0.01 1.08 1.09 0.01 0.28 0.29 2,218
Manufacturing 1.70 1.05 0.01 2.18 2.19 0.01 0.56 0.58 4,473Total 48.9 30.3 0.41 62.7 63.1 0.38 16.2 16.6 128,695Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development

1.27 0.75 0.01 1.64 1.65 0.01 0.42 0.43 3,067
General HeavyIndustry

2.65 1.56 0.02 3.43 3.45 0.02 0.88 0.91 6,413
General OfficeBuilding

0.53 0.31 < 0.005 0.69 0.70 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 1,293
Hospital 1.61 0.95 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.54 0.55 3,909Automobile CareCenter

0.32 0.16 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 562
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.15 0.09 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 368
Manufacturing 0.21 0.13 < 0.005 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 515Total 6.75 3.94 0.06 8.62 8.68 0.05 2.22 2.28 16,125

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1350
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 11 / 34

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.00Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 0.00Total — — — — — — — — 0.00Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.00Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 0.00

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1351
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 12 / 34

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-NoRail
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 0.00Total — — — — — — — — 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 0.00
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.00Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 0.00
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 0.00Total — — — — — — — — 0.00

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development

0.14 2.55 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 3,053
General HeavyIndustry

0.82 14.9 1.13 — 1.13 1.13 — 1.13 17,788
General OfficeBuilding

0.05 0.96 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,153
Hospital 0.46 8.42 0.64 — 0.64 0.64 — 0.64 10,071

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1352
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 13 / 34
Automobile CareCenter

0.03 0.48 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 577
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.02 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 395
Manufacturing 0.07 1.22 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 1,464Total 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development

0.14 2.55 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 3,053
General HeavyIndustry

0.82 14.9 1.13 — 1.13 1.13 — 1.13 17,788
General OfficeBuilding

0.05 0.96 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,153
Hospital 0.46 8.42 0.64 — 0.64 0.64 — 0.64 10,071Automobile CareCenter

0.03 0.48 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 577
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.02 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 395
Manufacturing 0.07 1.22 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 1,464Total 1.59 28.8 2.19 — 2.19 2.19 — 2.19 34,500Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development

0.03 0.47 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 505
General HeavyIndustry

0.15 2.71 0.21 — 0.21 0.21 — 0.21 2,945
General OfficeBuilding

0.01 0.18 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 191
Hospital 0.08 1.54 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 1,667Automobile CareCenter < 0.005 0.09 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 95.5

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1353
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 14 / 34

65.4 < 0.005
— < 0.005 < 0.005
— < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-NoRail
Manufacturing 0.01 0.22 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 242Total 0.29 5.26 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 5,712

4.3. Area Emissions by Source4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
ConsumerProducts

56.0 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

7.49 — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

18.7 0.96 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 470
Total 82.3 0.96 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 470Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
ConsumerProducts

56.0 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

7.49 — — — — — — — —
Total 63.5 — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —ConsumerProducts

10.2 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

1.37 — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1354
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 15 / 34
LandscapeEquipment

1.69 0.09 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 38.4
Total 13.3 0.09 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 38.4

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 730
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 1,085
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 99.6
Hospital — — — — — — — — 198Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 14.3
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 201
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 120Total — — — — — — — — 2,448Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 730
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 1,085
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 99.6

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1355
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 16 / 34
Hospital — — — — — — — — 198
Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 14.3
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 201
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 120Total — — — — — — — — 2,448Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 121
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 180
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 16.5
Hospital — — — — — — — — 32.8Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 2.37
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 33.3
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 19.9Total — — — — — — — — 405

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1356
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 17 / 34

57.3 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Research &
Development
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 2,955
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 265
Hospital — — — — — — — — 8,655Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 295
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 415
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 243Total — — — — — — — — 12,885Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 57.3
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 2,955
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 265
Hospital — — — — — — — — 8,655Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 295
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 415
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 243Total — — — — — — — — 12,885Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 9.49

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1357
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 18 / 34
489
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— General Heavy
Industry
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 43.8
Hospital — — — — — — — — 1,433Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 48.9
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 68.7
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 40.3Total — — — — — — — — 2,133

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 10.2
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 329
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.37
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.67Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 8,500
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 27.1Total — — — — — — — — 8,867

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1358
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 19 / 34
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Daily, Winter
(Max)
Research &Development
— — — — — — — — 10.2
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 329
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.37
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.67Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 8,500
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 27.1Total — — — — — — — — 8,867Annual — — — — — — — — —Research &Development — — — — — — — — 1.69
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 54.5
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.06
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.11Automobile CareCenter
— — — — — — — — 1,407
Manufacturing — — — — — — — — 4.48Total — — — — — — — — 1,468

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1359
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 20 / 34
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Daily, Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1360
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 21 / 34
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1361
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 22 / 34
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Annual — — — — — — — — —Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1362
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 23 / 34
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————

5. Activity Data5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearResearch &Development 4,432 748 436 1,217,223 39,780 6,714 3,913 10,925,473
General HeavyIndustry
6,156 10,061 7,976 2,545,389 55,252 90,309 71,589 22,846,744 General OfficeBuilding
1,857 421 133 513,121 16,671 3,781 1,193 4,605,636
Hospital 4,685 3,374 2,959 1,551,715 42,053 30,285 26,558 13,927,790Automobile CareCenter 978 978 490 331,475 4,932 8,777 4,398 1,972,765
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail
400 400 400 146,051 3,592 3,592 3,592 1,310,916
Manufacturing 494 807 640 204,225 4,434 7,244 5,741 1,833,068

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1363
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 24 / 34
Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
0 0.00 3,928,500 1,309,500 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Research & Development 8,467,453 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 9,500,116General Heavy Industry 13,790,425 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 55,349,430General Office Building 3,196,464 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 3,586,294Hospital 16,528,048 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 31,337,263Automobile Care Center 447,316 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1,795,353Unrefrigerated Warehouse-NoRail 2,344,168 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1,229,500
Manufacturing 1,134,655 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 4,554,067

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Research & Development 196,677,579 0.00General Heavy Industry 292,300,000 0.00

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1364
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 25 / 34
General Office Building 26,837,796 0.00
Hospital 53,329,228 0.00Automobile Care Center 3,857,325 0.00Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 54,112,500 0.00Manufacturing 32,375,000 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Research & Development 30.4 —General Heavy Industry 1,567 —General Office Building 140 —Hospital 4,590 —Automobile Care Center 157 —Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 220 —Manufacturing 129 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedResearch &Development Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Research &Development
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
General HeavyIndustry
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1365
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 26 / 34

1.00 0.00 0.60 0.02 1,430 R-134a General Office
Building
Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
General OfficeBuilding
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hospital Chillers R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 2.00 2.00 23.0Hospital Household refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hospital Stand-alone retail
refrigerators andfreezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Hospital Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Automobile CareCenter
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Automobile CareCenter
Supermarketrefrigeration andcondensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Manufacturing Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1366
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 27 / 34

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1367
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 28 / 34
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 9.23 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 4.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mmSea Level Rise — meters of inundation depthWildfire 13.4 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures fromobserved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall ifreceived over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), andconsider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled withextreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 metersWildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical dataof climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1368
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 29 / 34

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 1112 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractExposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 6.38AQ-PM 18.7AQ-DPM 77.9Drinking Water 11.4Lead Risk Housing 60.4

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1369
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 30 / 34
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 26.9Traffic 55.0Effect Indicators
—
CleanUp Sites 71.9Groundwater 95.9Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 88.9Impaired Water Bodies 0.00Solid Waste 22.1Sensitive Population —
Asthma 11.7Cardio-vascular 13.3Low Birth Weights 74.9Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 24.1Housing 21.6Linguistic 36.0Poverty 23.9Unemployment 25.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index ScoresThe maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractEconomic
—
Above Poverty 72.1416656Employed 91.08174002Median HI 71.96201719Education —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1370
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 31 / 34
Bachelor's or higher 83.65199538
High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 82.71525728Transportation —
Auto Access 55.28037983Active commuting 71.05094315Social —
2-parent households 19.08122674Voting 87.46310792Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 19.2865392Park access 81.35506224Retail density 83.10021814Supermarket access 65.10971385Tree canopy 87.27062749Housing —
Homeownership 20.18478121Housing habitability 66.13627615Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 70.11420506Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 76.20941871Uncrowded housing 77.4541255Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 70.78147055Arthritis 0.0Asthma ER Admissions 79.6High Blood Pressure 0.0Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0Asthma 0.0

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1371
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 32 / 34
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0Life Expectancy at Birth 89.3Cognitively Disabled 70.6Physically Disabled 80.2Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.2Mental Health Not Good 0.0Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0Obesity 0.0Pedestrian Injuries 19.6Physical Health Not Good 0.0Stroke 0.0Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0Current Smoker 0.0No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 0.0SLR Inundation Area 0.0Children 50.1Elderly 38.5English Speaking 45.4Foreign-born 57.9Outdoor Workers 75.9Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 41.3Traffic Density 46.5

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1372
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 33 / 34
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices
—
Hardship 11.1Other Decision Support
—
2016 Voting 91.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 26.0Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 83.0Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.7.4. Health & Equity MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.8. User Changes to Default Data Screen JustificationCharacteristics: Utility Information San Carlos default clean energy provider is Peninsula Clean Energy. CalEEMod 2045 forecasted factor used.

Operations: Vehicle Data Provided trip gen.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1373
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan Existing 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 34 / 34
Operations: Water and Waste Water Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.

Operations: Road Dust Silt loading factor = 0.0357

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1374
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 1 / 30
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Existin
g To Be Remove
d
2045

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1375
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 2 / 30

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1376
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 3 / 30

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1377
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 4 / 30

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1378
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 5 / 30

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1379
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 6 / 30

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name 23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045Operational Year 2045Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 4.70Precipitation (days) 3.20Location San Carlos, CA, USACounty San MateoCity San CarlosAir District Bay Area AQMDAir Basin San Francisco Bay AreaTAZ 1258EDFZ 1Electric Utility Peninsula Clean EnergyGas Utility Pacific Gas & ElectricApp Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
General HeavyIndustry
303 1000sqft 6.96 303,000 0.00 — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1380
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 7 / 30
—
—
— 0.00 45,000 1.03 1000sqft 45.0 General Office
Building
Hospital 10.0 1000sqft 0.23 10,000 0.00 — — —UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail

60.0 1000sqft 1.38 60,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions SectorNo measures selected2. Emissions Summary2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Unmit. 20.2 7.80 0.40 8.69 9.09 0.39 2.24 2.63 26,067Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Unmit. 17.1 8.33 0.37 8.69 9.06 0.37 2.24 2.61 25,194Average Daily(Max) —————————
Unmit. 16.7 7.07 0.37 6.31 6.68 0.36 1.63 1.99 20,389Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —Unmit. 3.05 1.29 0.07 1.15 1.22 0.07 0.30 0.36 3,376

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1381
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 8 / 30
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Daily, Summer
(Max)
Mobile 6.85 3.51 0.06 8.69 8.75 0.05 2.24 2.29 18,633Area 13.1 0.15 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 75.0Energy 0.23 4.13 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 4,946Water — — — — — — — — 1,237Waste — — — — — — — — 1,097Refrig. — — — — — — — — 79.0Total 20.2 7.80 0.40 8.69 9.09 0.39 2.24 2.63 26,067Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Mobile 6.78 4.20 0.06 8.69 8.75 0.05 2.24 2.29 17,834Area 10.1 — — — — — — — —Energy 0.23 4.13 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 4,946Water — — — — — — — — 1,237Waste — — — — — — — — 1,097Refrig. — — — — — — — — 79.0Total 17.1 8.33 0.37 8.69 9.06 0.37 2.24 2.61 25,194Average Daily —————————Mobile 4.87 2.86 0.04 6.31 6.35 0.04 1.63 1.66 12,993Area 11.6 0.08 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 37.0Energy 0.23 4.13 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 4,946Water — — — — — — — — 1,237Waste — — — — — — — — 1,097Refrig. — — — — — — — — 79.0Total 16.7 7.07 0.37 6.31 6.68 0.36 1.63 1.99 20,389Annual — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.89 0.52 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.30 0.30 2,151Area 2.12 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 6.13

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1382
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 9 / 30
Energy 0.04 0.75 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 819
Water — — — — — — — — 205Waste — — — — — — — — 182Refrig. — — — — — — — — 13.1Total 3.05 1.29 0.07 1.15 1.22 0.07 0.30 0.36 3,376

4. Operations Emissions Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry

5.14 2.63 0.04 6.51 6.56 0.04 1.68 1.72 13,966
General OfficeBuilding

1.04 0.53 0.01 1.32 1.33 0.01 0.34 0.35 2,825
Hospital 0.46 0.23 < 0.005 0.58 0.58 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 1,245UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.22 0.11 < 0.005 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 598
Total 6.85 3.51 0.06 8.69 8.75 0.05 2.24 2.29 18,633Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry

5.08 3.15 0.04 6.51 6.56 0.04 1.68 1.72 13,367
General OfficeBuilding

1.03 0.64 0.01 1.32 1.33 0.01 0.34 0.35 2,703
Hospital 0.45 0.28 < 0.005 0.58 0.58 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 1,192

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1383
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 10 / 30
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.22 0.13 < 0.005 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 572
Total 6.78 4.20 0.06 8.69 8.75 0.05 2.24 2.29 17,834Annual — — — — — — — — —General HeavyIndustry

0.63 0.37 0.01 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.21 0.22 1,537
General OfficeBuilding

0.14 0.08 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 340
Hospital 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 179UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail

0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 94.9
Total 0.89 0.52 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.30 0.30 2,151

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.00UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 0.00Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1384
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 11 / 30
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.00UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — —General HeavyIndustry — — — — — — — — 0.00
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.00UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 0.00

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry

0.20 3.56 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 4,264
General OfficeBuilding

0.02 0.29 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 343
Hospital 0.01 0.20 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 237UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail < 0.005 0.08 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 101

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1385
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 12 / 30
Total 0.23 4.13 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 4,946
Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
General HeavyIndustry

0.20 3.56 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 4,264
General OfficeBuilding

0.02 0.29 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 343
Hospital 0.01 0.20 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 237UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail < 0.005 0.08 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 101
Total 0.23 4.13 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 4,946Annual — — — — — — — — —General HeavyIndustry

0.04 0.65 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 706
General OfficeBuilding
< 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 56.9
Hospital < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 39.2UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 16.8
Total 0.04 0.75 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 819

4.3. Area Emissions by Source4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
ConsumerProducts

8.95 — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1386
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 13 / 30
ArchitecturalCoatings

1.19 — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

2.99 0.15 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 75.0
Total 13.1 0.15 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 75.0Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
ConsumerProducts

8.95 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

1.19 — — — — — — — —
Total 10.1 — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —ConsumerProducts

1.63 — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.22 — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

0.27 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 6.13
Total 2.12 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 6.13

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 825
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 69.9

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1387
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 14 / 30
Hospital — — — — — — — — 193
UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail
— — — — — — — — 149
Total — — — — — — — — 1,237Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 825
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 69.9
Hospital — — — — — — — — 193UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 149
Total — — — — — — — — 1,237Annual — — — — — — — — —General HeavyIndustry — — — — — — — — 137
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 11.6
Hospital — — — — — — — — 32.0UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 24.7
Total — — — — — — — — 205

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1388
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 15 / 30
Daily, Summer(Max)
—————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 708
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 78.9
Hospital — — — — — — — — 204UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 106
Total — — — — — — — — 1,097Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 708
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 78.9
Hospital — — — — — — — — 204UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 106
Total — — — — — — — — 1,097Annual — — — — — — — — —General HeavyIndustry — — — — — — — — 117
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 13.1
Hospital — — — — — — — — 33.7UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail — — — — — — — — 17.6
Total — — — — — — — — 182

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1389
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 16 / 30

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 78.9
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.11
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.02Total — — — — — — — — 79.0Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
General HeavyIndustry
— — — — — — — — 78.9
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.11
Hospital — — — — — — — — 0.02Total — — — — — — — — 79.0Annual — — — — — — — — —General HeavyIndustry — — — — — — — — 13.1
General OfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — 0.02
Hospital — — — — — — — — < 0.005Total — — — — — — — — 13.1

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1390
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 17 / 30

4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. Unmitigated

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1391
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 18 / 30
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1392
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 19 / 30
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter(Max)
—————————
Total — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2eDaily, Summer(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Daily, Winter(Max) —————————
Avoided —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————Annual — — — — — — — — —

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1393
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 20 / 30
Avoided —————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — —Removed — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — ———————————

5. Activity Data5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearGeneral HeavyIndustry 1,476 2,412 1,912 610,168 13,245 21,648 17,161 5,476,712 General OfficeBuilding
488 111 35.1 134,779 4,378 994 315 1,209,740
Hospital 215 155 136 71,206 1,930 1,389 1,219 639,129UnrefrigeratedWarehouse-No Rail 103 103 103 37,668 926 926 926 338,098

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1394
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 21 / 30
Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
0 0.00 627,000 209,000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)General Heavy Industry 3,305,774 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 13,268,099General Office Building 952,588 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1,068,763Hospital 388,895 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 737,347Unrefrigerated Warehouse-NoRail 601,069 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 315,256

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)General Heavy Industry 222,231,250 0.00General Office Building 18,839,777 0.00Hospital 52,074,423 0.00Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 40,237,500 0.00

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1395
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 22 / 30

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)General Heavy Industry 376 —General Office Building 41.9 —Hospital 108 —Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 56.4 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedGeneral HeavyIndustry Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
General OfficeBuilding
Householdrefrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General OfficeBuilding
Other commercial A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hospital Chillers R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 2.00 2.00 23.0Hospital Household refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hospital Stand-alone retail
refrigerators andfreezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Hospital Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1396
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 23 / 30

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1397
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 24 / 30

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location UnitTemperature and Extreme Heat 9.23 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 4.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mmSea Level Rise — meters of inundation depthWildfire 13.4 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures fromobserved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall ifreceived over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), andconsider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled withextreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 metersWildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical dataof climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1398
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 25 / 30
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation 1112 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1399
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 26 / 30

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractExposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 6.38AQ-PM 18.7AQ-DPM 77.9Drinking Water 11.4Lead Risk Housing 60.4Pesticides 0.00Toxic Releases 26.9Traffic 55.0Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 71.9Groundwater 95.9Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 88.9Impaired Water Bodies 0.00Solid Waste 22.1Sensitive Population —
Asthma 11.7Cardio-vascular 13.3Low Birth Weights 74.9Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 24.1Housing 21.6Linguistic 36.0Poverty 23.9Unemployment 25.2

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1400
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 27 / 30

7.2. Healthy Places Index ScoresThe maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census TractEconomic
—
Above Poverty 72.1416656Employed 91.08174002Median HI 71.96201719Education —
Bachelor's or higher 83.65199538High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 82.71525728Transportation —
Auto Access 55.28037983Active commuting 71.05094315Social —
2-parent households 19.08122674Voting 87.46310792Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 19.2865392Park access 81.35506224Retail density 83.10021814Supermarket access 65.10971385Tree canopy 87.27062749Housing —
Homeownership 20.18478121Housing habitability 66.13627615Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 70.11420506Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 76.20941871

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1401
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 28 / 30
Uncrowded housing 77.4541255
Health Outcomes
—
Insured adults 70.78147055Arthritis 0.0Asthma ER Admissions 79.6High Blood Pressure 0.0Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0Asthma 0.0Coronary Heart Disease 0.0Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0Life Expectancy at Birth 89.3Cognitively Disabled 70.6Physically Disabled 80.2Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.2Mental Health Not Good 0.0Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0Obesity 0.0Pedestrian Injuries 19.6Physical Health Not Good 0.0Stroke 0.0Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0Current Smoker 0.0No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 0.0SLR Inundation Area 0.0

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1402
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 29 / 30
Children 50.1
Elderly 38.5English Speaking 45.4Foreign-born 57.9Outdoor Workers 75.9Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 41.3Traffic Density 46.5Traffic Access 87.4Other Indices —
Hardship 11.1Other Decision Support
—
2016 Voting 91.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 26.0Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 83.0Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.7.4. Health & Equity MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1403
23-003 San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Existing To Be Removed 2045 Detailed Report, 3/17/2025 30 / 30

7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.8. User Changes to Default Data Screen JustificationCharacteristics: Utility Information San Carlos default clean energy provider is Peninsula Clean Energy. 2045 CalEEMod default forecasted factors used.

Operations: Vehicle Data Provided trip gen for existing to be removed.Operations: Water and Waste Water Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.Operations: Road Dust Silt loading factor = 0.0357

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1404
Attachment 2: Health Risk Assessment Information

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1405
BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – Maximum Roadway Cancer Risk Impacts within San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Area

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1406
BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – Maximum Roadway PM2.5 Concentration Impacts within San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Area

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1407
BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – Maximum Roadway Hazard Index Impacts within San Carlos Northeast Specific Plan Area

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1408
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan, San Carlos, CA DPM Modeling - Rail Line Information and DPM Emission RatesCaltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight Average Daily Emission Rate
Link
Emission
Rate
Link
Emission
Rate
(ft) (m) (ft) (miles) (m) (m) (mph) (g/mi/day) (g/s) (lb/hr) 2030 Caltrain 1 36.1 11 4,358 0.83 1,328 5 21 40 47.6 4.54E-04 3.61E-03 Freight 1 36.1 11 4,358 0.83 1,328 5 4 40 15.8 1.51E-04 1.20E-03Total - - - - - - - 25 - 63.4 6.06E-04 4.81E-03 Notes: a Emission source modeling parameters from BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E, 2022.

Emissions based on Emission Factors for Locomotives USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025)Passenger trains assumed to operate for 24 hours per dayFeight trains assumed to operate for 24 hours per day DPM Locomotive Emission Factors (g/hr)Train Type 2030Passenger 65.9Freight 115 No. Diesel
Trains
per Day
Train
Travel
Speed
DPM Emission Rates
Link
Length
Link
Length
Release Heighta Year Description
Modeled
No. Lines
Link
Widtha
Linkd
Width
Link
Length

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1409
Weekday 20
Weekend 21
Sat Only 0
Total Trains 41
Annual Average Daily Trains 21
Locomotive Horsepower 3467
Locomotives per train 1
Engine Load 1
Freight
Freight trains per day
Locomotive horsepower
Locomotives per train
Total Horsepower
Locomotive Engine Load
4 2300
2 4600

0.5 Caltrain Passenger Trains
2030 (with
Electrification)
Diesel Trains

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1410
Screening Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area : 19,692,982.59 ft²
Jan 23 2025 13:57:29 Pacific Standard Time
1/23/25, 1:57 PM about:blank
about:blank 1/6
Permitted Stationary Sources
0 0.
0 0.17
1 18,056

0.2 0.35

0.4 n~

0.7 m
Mai:, ciat.a c, OlE'!"IS. eat\iJ!P eon':'lt! JICY&- ._, er.::s.ot F.iee?:look ·no .ri:t ~s. it.H E5rl-COrnT ,,ITI . \ i4!1iio.F1t11i.t.:::'l \1c'lO lflJerD)' c5r,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1411
Summary
Name Count Area(ft²) Length(ft)
Permitted Stationary Sources 32 N/A N/A
Permitted Stationary Sources
# Address Cancer_Ris Chronic_Ha City County
1 171 Industrial Rd 0.00 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
2 361 Quarry Rd 0.00 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
3 1438 Old County Rd 0.00 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
4 555 Harbor Boulevard 0.00 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
5 270 Industrial Road 0.00 0.01 San Carlos San Mateo
6 275 Industrial Road 3.38 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
7 400 Harbor Blvd Bldg C 1.45 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
8 1305 Elmer Street 0.00 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
9 1355 Shoreway Road 2.22 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
10 1385 Shoreway Road 4.59 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
11 333 Shoreway Road 0.10 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
12 150 Shoreline Drive 4.91 0.00 Redwood City San Mateo 13 236 Industrial Rd 0.00 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
14 244 Industrial Rd 0.00 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
15 301 Industrial Road 2.24 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
16 219 Old County Rd #C 0.00 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
17 195 El Camino Real 11.37 0.05 San Carlos San Mateo
18 150 SHORELINE DR 0.09 0.00 Redwood City San Mateo
19 1309 Elmer Street 0.00 0.00 Belmont San Mateo
20 125 SHOREWAY RD
STE D 2.91 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
21 201 Industrial Road 2.50 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
22 75 Shoreway Road 0.64 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
23 201 Industrial Road 9.25 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
24 150 Industrial Road 0.88 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
25 360 Industrial Road 0.98 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
26 299 Old County Rd Unit
11 0.00 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
27 90 El Camino Real 16.68 0.07 San Carlos San Mateo
28 701 Harbor Blvd 23.03 0.10 Belmont San Mateo
29 907 Holly St 28.31 0.12 San Carlos San Mateo
30 610 Harbor Blvd 10.26 0.04 Belmont San Mateo
31 275 Industrial Road 7.36 0.03 San Carlos San Mateo
32 906 Holly St 33.72 0.15 San Carlos San Mateo
1/23/25, 1:57 PM about:blank
about:blank 2/6

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1412
# Details Facility_I Facility_N Latitude Longitude
1 No Data 14841 Caliber Fleet Solutions 37.52 -122.27
2 No Data 9138 Chilton Autobody 37.52 -122.27
3 No Data 11832 Bartlett's Auto Body &
Paint Shop Inc 37.52 -122.27
4 No Data 12166 Moquin Press Inc 37.52 -122.27
5 No Data 528 Delta Star Inc 37.52 -122.27
6 Generator 3174 Pacific Gas and Electric
Company 37.52 -122.26
7 Generator 15882 County of San Mateo 37.52 -122.27
8 No Data 16113 Bay Pacific A/B 37.52 -122.27
9 Generator 13347 Jameco Electronics 37.52 -122.26
10 Generator 14035
Silicon Valley Clean
Water Belmont Pump
Stn

37.52 -122.26
11 No Data 20577 South Bay Recycling
LLC (SBR) 37.52 -122.26
12 Generator 20879 ABS-CBN International 37.52 -122.26
13 No Data 17263 San Carlos Collision 37.52 -122.26
14 No Data 17281 Cambron Auto Body Inc 37.52 -122.26
15 Generator 21902
Palo Alto Medical
Foundation - San Carlos
Center

37.52 -122.26
16 No Data 21994 Pang Pang Auto Body
Shop 37.52 -122.27
17 Gas Dispensing Facility 103150-1 Auto Pride Wash 37.51 -122.27 18 Generator 200840 Auris Health Inc. 37.52 -122.26
19 No Data 22592 AW Collision Autobahn 37.52 -122.27
20 Generator 200957 ARE - San Francisco No.
71 HOLDING LLC 37.52 -122.26
21 No Data 23729 BMR 201 Industrial Road
LP 37.52 -122.27
22 Generator 24842 GI ETS SHOREWAY
LLC 37.52 -122.26
23 Generator 22955 Natera Inc 37.52 -122.26
24 Generator 25254 BGOGC 150 Industrial
Owner LLC 37.51 -122.26
25 Generator 23072 Sequoia Realty Services 37.51 -122.26 26 No Data 24261 Silicon Valley Coffee LLC 37.51 -122.27 27 Gas Dispensing Facility 107089-1 Justin Chevron 37.51 -122.27 28 Gas Dispensing Facility 112510-1 Double Time 37.52 -122.27 29 Gas Dispensing Facility 110743-1 A & A Gas Inc DBA A&A Gas & Food Mart 37.51 -122.26
30 Gas Dispensing Facility 110968-1 Flyers #489 37.52 -122.27 31 Gas Dispensing Facility 3174-6 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 37.52 -122.26
32 Gas Dispensing Facility 111955-1 Bay Petroleum dba Holly 76 37.51 -122.26
1/23/25, 1:57 PM about:blank
about:blank 3/6

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1413
# NAICS NAICS_Indu NAICS_Sect NAICS_Subs PM25
1 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
2 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
3 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
4 323110 Commercial Lithographic
Printing Manufacturing Printing and RelatedSupport Activities 0.00 5 335311
Power, Distribution, and
Specialty Transformer
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Electrical Equipment,
Appliance, and
Component
Manufacturing

0.02 6 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric
Power Generation Utilities Utilities 0.00
7 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric
Power Generation Utilities Utilities 0.00
8 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
9 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric
Power Generation Utilities Utilities 0.00
10 221320 Sewage Treatment
Facilities Utilities Utilities 0.01
11 562211 Hazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal
Administrative and
Support and Waste
Management and
Remediation Services
Waste Management and
Remediation Services 65.42
12 531120
Lessors of
Nonresidential Buildings
(except Miniwarehouses)
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing Real Estate 0.01
13 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
14 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
15 621111
Offices of Physicians
(except Mental Health
Specialists)
Health Care and Social
Assistance
Ambulatory Health Care
Services 0.00
16 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
17 811192 Car Washes Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
18 339112
Surgical and Medical
Instrument
Manufacturing
Manufacturing Miscellaneous
Manufacturing 0.00
19 811121
Automotive Body, Paint,
and Interior Repair and
Maintenance
Other Services (except
Public Administration) Repair and Maintenance 0.00
20 238160 Roofing Contractors Construction Specialty Trade Contractors 0.00
1/23/25, 1:57 PM about:blank
about:blank 4/6

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1414
21 541720
Research and
Development in the
Social Sciences and
Humanities
Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services
Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services 0.00
22 531312 Nonresidential Property
Managers
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing Real Estate 0.00
23 541711
Research and
Development in
Biotechnology
Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services
Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services 0.01
24 325411 Medicinal and Botanical
Manufacturing Manufacturing Chemical Manufacturing 0.00 25 444130 Hardware Stores Retail Trade
Building Material and
Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers

0.00 26 311920 Coffee and Tea
Manufacturing Manufacturing Food Manufacturing 0.00
27 447110 Gasoline Stations with
Convenience Stores Retail Trade Gasoline Stations 0.00
28 447190 Other Gasoline Stations Retail Trade Gasoline Stations 0.00 29 447110 Gasoline Stations with
Convenience Stores Retail Trade Gasoline Stations 0.00
30 424720
Petroleum and
Petroleum Products
Merchant Wholesalers
(except Bulk Stations
and Terminals)
Wholesale Trade Merchant Wholesalers,
Nondurable Goods 0.00
31 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric
Power Generation Utilities Utilities 0.00
32 447110 Gasoline Stations with
Convenience Stores Retail Trade Gasoline Stations 0.00
1/23/25, 1:57 PM about:blank
about:blank 5/6

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1415
# State Zip Count
1 CA 94070 1
2 CA 94070 1
3 CA 94002 1
4 CA 94002 1
5 CA 94070 1
6 CA 94070 1
7 CA 94002 1
8 CA 94002 1
9 CA 94002 1
10 CA 94002 1
11 CA 94070 1
12 CA 94065 1
13 CA 94070 1
14 CA 94070 1
15 CA 94070 1
16 CA 94070 1
17 CA 94070 1
18 CA 94065 1
19 CA 94002 1
20 CA 94070 1
21 CA 94070 1
22 CA 94070 1
23 CA 94070 1
24 CA 94070 1
25 CA 94070 1
26 CA 94070 1
27 CA 94070 1
28 CA 94002 1
29 CA 94070 1
30 CA 94002 1
31 CA 94070 1
32 CA 94070 1
NOTE: A larger buffer than 1,000 may be warranted depending on proximity to significant sources. 1/23/25, 1:57 PM about:blank
about:blank 6/6

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1416
Date of Request 2/10/2025
Contact Name Jordyn Bauer
Affiliation Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Phone 707Ͳ794Ͳ0400 x106
Email
[email protected]
Project Name
San Carlos North East Area
Specific Plan
AddressCity San Carlos
County San Mateo
Type (residential,commercial, mixed
use, industrial, etc.)
Project Size (# of
units or building
square feet)
Table A: Requester Contact Information
Comments:

Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry FormThis form is required when users request stationary source data from BAAQMD This form is to be used with the BAAQMD's Google Earth stationary source screening tables.

Click here for guidance on coducting risk & hazard screening, including roadways & freeways, refer to the District's Risk & Hazard Analysis flow chart.

Click here for District's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards document.

For Air District assistance, the following steps must be completed:

1. Complete all the contact and project information requested in . Incomplete forms will not be processed. Please include a project site map.

2. Download and install the free program Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/, and then download the county specific Google Earth stationary source application files from the District's website, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/PlanningͲandͲResearch/CEQAͲGUIDELINES/ToolsͲandͲ Methodology.aspx. The small points on the map represent stationary sources permitted by the District (Map A on right). These permitted sources include diesel backͲup generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc. Click on a point to view the source's Information Table, including the name, location, and preliminary estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration.

3. Find the project site in Google Earth by inputting the site's address in the Google Earth search box.4. Identify stationary sources within at least a 1000ft radius of project site. Verify that the location of the source on the map matches with the source's address in the Information Table, by using the Google Earth address search box to confirm the source's address location. Please report any mapping errors to the District.

5. List the stationary source information in blue section only.

6. Note that a small percentage of the stationary sources have Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) data INSTEAD of screening level data. These sources will be noted by an asterisk next to the Plant Name (Map B on right). If HRSA values are presented, these values have already been modeled and cannot be adjusted further.

7. Email this completed form to District staff. District staff will provide the most recent risk, hazard, and PM2.5 data that are available for the source(s). If this information or data are not available,source emissions data will be provided. Staff will respond to inquiries within three weeks.

Note that a public records request received for the same stationary source information will cancel the processing of your SSIF request.

Submit forms, maps, and questions to Matthew Hanson at 415Ͳ749Ͳ8733, or [email protected] Table A: Requester Contact Information
Table B
Table A
BAY AREA AIR O!JALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
1 C I•
7 June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1417
Construction MEI
Distance from
Receptor (feet) or
MEI1 Plant No. Facility Name Address Cancer Risk2
Hazard
Risk2 PM2.52 Source No.3 Type of Source4 Fuel Code5 Status/Comments Distance
Adjustment
Multiplier to MEI
Adjusted
Cancer Risk
Estimate
Adjusted
Hazard
Risk
Adjusted
PM2.5
919 20577 South Bay Recycling LLC (SBR) 333 Shoreway Road 0.1 0 65.42 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposa 2022 Datatset 0.150 0.02 0.000 9.8130 15 103150Ͳ1 Auto Pride Wash 195 El Camino Real 11.37 0.05 0 Car Washes 2022 Datatset 0.855 9.72 0.043 0.0000 98 107089Ͳ1 Justin Chevron 90 El Camino Real 16.68 0.07 0 Gas Dispensing Facility 2022 Datatset 0.559 9.32 0.039 0.0000 131 112510Ͳ1 Double Time 701 Harbor Blvd 23.03 0.1 0 Gas Dispensing Facility 2022 Datatset 0.365 8.41 0.037 0.0000 148 110743Ͳ1A & A GasInc DBA A&A Gas & F907 Holly St 28.31 0.12 0 Gas Dispensing Facility 2022 Datatset 0.305 8.63 0.037 0.0000 82 110968Ͳ1 Flyers #489 610 Harbor Blvd 10.26 0.04 0 Gas Dispensing Facility 2022 Datatset 0.728 7.47 0.029 0.0000 164 111955Ͳ1 Bay Petroleum dba Holly 76 906 Holly St 33.72 0.15 0 Gas Dispensing Facility 2022 Datatset 0.260 8.77 0.039 0.0000 Footnotes:

1. Maximally exposed individual
c. BAAQMD Reg 11 Rule 16 required that all coͲresidential (sharing a wall, floor, ceiling or isin the same building as a residential unit) dry cleaners cease use of perc on July 1, 2010.

Date last updated:03/13/2018
g. Thisspray booth is considered to be insignificant.

4. Permitted sourcesinclude diesel backͲup generators, gasstations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc.

11. Further information about common sources:
a. Sourcesthat only include diesel internal combustion engines can be adjusted using the BAAQMD's Diesel Multiplier worksheet. b. The risk from natural gas boilers used forspace heating when <25 MM BTU/hr would have an estimated cancer risk of one in a million or less, and a chronic hazard index of 0.003 or Therefore, there is no cancer risk, hazard or PM2.5 concentrationsfrom coͲresidential dry cleaning businesses in the BAAQMD. d. Non coͲresidential dry cleaners must phase out use of perc by Jan. 1, 2023. Therefore, the risk from these dry cleaners does not need to be factored in over a 70Ͳyear period, but instead should reflect e. Gasstations can be adjusted using BAAQMD's Gas Station Distance Mulitplier worksheet.

6. If a Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) was completed for the source, the application number will be listed here.

7. The date that the HRSA was completed.

8. Engineer who completed the HRSA. For District purposes only.

9. All HRSA completed before 1/5/2010 need to be multiplied by an age sensitivity factor of 1.7.

10. The HRSA "Chronic Health" number representsthe Hazard Index.

5. Fuel codes: 98 = diesel, 189 = Natural Gas.

2. These Cancer Risk, Hazard Index, and PM2.5 columnsrepresent the valuesin the Google Earth Plant Information Table.

3. Each plant may have multiple permits and sources.
f. Unless otherwise noted, exempt sources are considered insignificant. See BAAQMD Reg 2 Rule 1 for a list of exempt sources.

Table B: Google Earth data

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1418
Attachment 3: San Carlos CMAP Consistency Checklist for New Development

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1419
1 City of San Carlos Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan Consistency Checklist for New Development
Updated as of 5/20/2022
The purpose of this Checklist is to ensure that development projects comply with San Carlos’ Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) and may be eligible for streamlining the greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. To be considered consistent with San Carlos’ CMAP, projects must comply with the land use designations in San Carlos’ General Plan and implement at minimum the required CMAP measures listed in the Checklist. Projects may then rely on the City’s CMAP and related environmental review for the impact analysis of GHG emissions, as allowable under CEQA.

The Checklist contains measures from the CMAP that pertain to new development. Each measure is noted as either required or voluntary. Required measures are mandated by local or state ordinances. The voluntary measures represent goals of the City and projects are encouraged to address them. Proposed projects that require a General Plan amendment or rezoning and/or do not address the required measures may have to prepare a project-specific GHG analysis and identify appropriate mitigation measures.

San Carlos’ Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan: cityofsancarlos.org/climate San Carlos’ General Plan: cityofsancarlos.org/generalplan San Carlos’ All-Electric Reach Codes: cityofsancarlos.org/reachcodes San Carlos’ Municipal Code: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/ For questions regarding this Checklist or the CMAP, please contact Adam Lokar, Sustainability Specialist at [email protected]
Contact Information
Project Name:

Property Address:

If a consultant was used to complete this checklist, please provide their contact information:

Consultant Name & Company:

Consultant Phone & Email:

Project Information
Proposed land use (residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use, or other):

Brief project description:

Project size (sq. ft. and/or unit size):

Is the proposed project seeking a General Plan amendment or rezoning? ‰ Yes ‰ No If yes, briefly explain:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1420
2 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan Measure Project Compliance

REQUIRED STRATEGIES
CMAP Strategy 5. Building Codes. Advance electrification through local amendments to the California Building
Code.

San Carlos’ reach codes: cityofsancarlos.org/reachcodes Required Measure
Is the project an all-electric design?
‰ Yes ‰ No
If not, under what exception is the project allowed gas? Please note that an exception for scientific laboratories requires a third party cost effectiveness study. For
exceptions visit cityofsancarlos.org/reachcodes.

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

San Carlos’ reach codes: cityofsancarlos.org/reachcodes Required Measure
Does the project include a photovoltaic solar system as required by the City’s reach code?
‰ Yes ‰ No
CMAP 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 area, including
development on the east side.

San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.25,
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanC
arlos18/SanCarlos1825.html#18.25
San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.25,
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanC
arlos18/SanCarlos1825.html#18.25
Required Measure
Will the project have a TDM program that meets the 20%
reduction in trip generation rates when compared to
standard ITE trip generation rates?
‰ Yes ‰ No
CMAP Strategy 18. Electric Vehicles. Support residents
and business owners to transition to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

San Carlos’ reach codes: cityofsancarlos.org/reachcodes Required Measure
Does the project comply with the City’s EV charging
requirements in the reach code?
‰ Yes ‰ No
List total number and type of EV charging ports to be
installed:

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1421
3 CMAP Strategy 27. Construction and Demolition Waste.

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

San Carlos Municipal Code Section 8.05
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanC
arlos08/SanCarlos0805.html
Required Measure
Will the project comply with the required diversion rates of construction and demolition waste?
‰ Yes ‰ No
CMAP Strategy 28. Composting and Recycling. Partner
with RethinkWaste to expand commercial and multifamily residential recycling and composting programs.

San Carlos Municipal Code Section 8.04:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/html/
SanCarlos08/SanCarlos0804.html
San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.15.110:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanC
arlos18/SanCarlos1815.html#18.15.110
Required Measure
Does the project include facilities for collecting recycling and composting?
‰ Yes ‰ No
CMAP Strategy 32. Water-wise Landscaping. Promote
drought tolerant and firewise landscaping.

San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.18:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanC
arlos18/SanCarlos1818.html#18.18
Required Measure
Does the project’s landscape include native and droughtresistant plants to the maximum extent feasible? ‰ Yes ‰ No
CMAP Strategy 37. Heat Island Effect. Minimize the
urban heat island effect.

San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.20.100-K:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanC
arlos18/SanCarlos1820.html#18.20.100
Required Measure
Will at least fifty percent of the project’s paved parking areas be shaded or of light colored material?
‰ Yes ‰ No

VOLUNTARY MEASURES
CMAP Strategy 7. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100.

Continue to support and promote PCE as the
community’s official electricity provider with a goal to provide 100% carbon-free renewable energy by 2025.
peninsulacleanenergy.com/opt-up
Voluntary Measure
Will the project enroll in PCE as its energy provider?
‰ Yes ‰ No
Which PCE option? ECOplus (default) or ECO100?
CMAP Strategy 11. Transit Oriented Development.

Encourage development of mixed-use projects, higherdensity housing, and job growth within the General Plan’s recognized Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) corridor
Voluntary Measure
Is the project located in the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) corridor?
‰ Yes ‰ No

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1422
4 (Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3) while being mindful of
surrounding uses. (See Figure 1) If yes, how does the project improve the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor
through safety considerations such as separated
sidewalks and bike lanes or traffic calming measures?

CMAP 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.

San Carlos’ Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan:
cityofsancarlos.org/bikepedplan
Voluntary Measure
Will the project provide upgrades to active transportation infrastructure consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan?
‰ Yes ‰ No
If yes, please describe.

CMAP Strategy 25. Carbon Offset. Explore local and
regional opportunities to offset carbon emissions that
cannot be reduced to zero.

Voluntary Measure
Will the project be investing in carbon offsets?
‰ Yes ‰ No
If yes, please describe.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1423
5 Figure 1:

FIGUR E 3-1
Plann i n g Area s
D City l lmll
1111111 Sphere of Influence Ar•as
- Planning Area I
Plonnlng Areo 2
- Planning Area 3
- Planning Area 4
- Planning Area 5
- Planning Area 6
- Planning Area 7
- f lonnlng Area 8
- Planning Area 9
Bair Island
Belmont

0.2S 0.Sl'>le,

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1424
983 University Avenue, Building D y Los Gatos, CA 95032 y 408.458.3200 y www.harveyecology.com San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
Project #4715-01
Prepared for:

Désirée Dei Rossi
David J. Powers & Associates
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:

H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1425
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
i H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Project Background ................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.3.1 Resiliency Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3.2 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Section 2. Methods ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Background Review ................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 3. Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.1 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Rivers and Harbors Act .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.3 Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................................ 10

3.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................. 11

3.2 State Regulations .................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act .............................................................................................. 11

3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................ 12

3.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act ........................................................................................................................ 13

3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code ................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.5 State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Regulation ............................................................. 14

3.3 Local Regulations .................................................................................................................................................. 15

3.3.1 City of San Carlos Tree Ordinance ............................................................................................................ 15

3.3.2 City of San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Overlay District...................................... 16 Section 4. Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 17

4.1 General Specific Plan Area Description ............................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Biotic Habitats ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Developed/Landscaped ............................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.2 Riparian ........................................................................................................................................................... 20

4.2.3 Freshwater Marsh .......................................................................................................................................... 23

4.2.4 Aquatic Riverine ............................................................................................................................................ 24

4.3 Wildlife Movement ................................................................................................................................................ 25

4.3.1 Movement by Fish, Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians ..................................................................... 26

4.3.2 Pacific Flyway Stopover ............................................................................................................................... 26 Section 5. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats ........................................................................................ 27

5.1 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................................. 30

5.2 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................................. 30

5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Vegetation Alliances, and Habitats ............................................................ 43

5.3.1 Sensitive Natural Communities ................................................................................................................... 43

5.3.2 Sensitive Vegetation Alliances ..................................................................................................................... 44

5.3.3 CDFW Riparian Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 44

5.3.4 Sensitive Habitats (Waters of the U.S./State) ........................................................................................... 44

5.3.5 Nonnative and Invasive Species ................................................................................................................. 44 Section 6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................ 46

6.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species ...................................................................................................................... 47

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1426
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
ii H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

6.1.1 Impacts on Developed/Landscaped Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Species (Less than Significant) ............................................................................................................................................ 47

6.1.2 Impacts on Water Quality and Special-Status Species along Belmont Creek (Less than Significant) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

6.1.3 Impacts on the Monarch Butterfly (Less than Significant) ..................................................................... 48

6.1.4 Impacts on the Northwestern Pond Turtle (Less than Significant) ...................................................... 49

6.1.5 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ....................................................... 50

6.1.6 Impacts on Roosting Bats (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ....................................................... 51

6.1.7 Impacts on Nonbreeding Special-Status Birds (Less than Significant) ................................................ 53

6.1.8 Impacts on Wildlife from Artificial Lighting (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ....................... 54

6.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities .................................................................................................................... 55

6.3 Impacts on Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................ 56

6.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement .......................................................................................................................... 56

6.4.1 Impacts on Wildlife Movement (Less than Significant) .......................................................................... 56

6.4.2 Impacts Due to Bird Collisions (Less than Significant with Mitigation) .............................................. 57

6.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies .................................................................................................... 60

6.5.1 Impacts Due to the Removal of Ordinance-Sized Trees (Less than Significant) ............................... 60

6.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan ........................................................ 60

6.7 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................................................. 61 Section 7. References ................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Plan Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Biotic Habitats .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 4. Potential Bat Roost Sites ................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 5. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Plants .................................................................................. 28 Figure 6. CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Animals .............................................................................. 29 Tables
Table 1. Plan Development Projections .......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Resiliency Development Standards .................................................................................................................. 4 Table 3. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential for Occurrence in the Plan Area ............... 32 List of Preparers
Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Robin Carle, M.S., Project Manager/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Katie Gallagher, M.S., Senior Plant and Wetlands Ecologist Emily Malkauskas, B.S., Wildlife Ecologist

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1427
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 1. Introduction
This report describes impacts to biological resources that would result from the proposed San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan or Plan) area for the purpose of facilitating environmental review of the Specific Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This assessment is based on the maps and Specific Plan description provided to H. T. Harvey & Associates by David J. Powers & Associates through February 2025.

1.1 Project Location
The approximately 145-acre Northeast Area planning area (Plan area) is located in northeast San Carlos, California (Figure 1). The Plan area is roughly bounded 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 in the City of San Carlos (City) (Figure 2). The Plan area is located on the San Mateo, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle.

1.2 Project Background
Since 2015, the City has experienced an unprecedented level of private sector investment, including business and employment growth in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors in East San Carlos. The East Side Innovation District Vision Plan covers a portion of east San Carlos as the area bound by Holly Street, Brittan Avenue, Old County Road, and Highway 101. Historically, East San Carlos has been home to low-intensity commercial and industrial businesses and is currently seeing an increased interest in Research and Development uses. To plan for these changes, the City approved the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan in October 2021. The plan established strategies for managing and harnessing growth in the area.

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

Because of continued developer interest in the City’s east side area, consisting of both proposed and approved new development, San Carlos is on a trajectory to exceed the level of buildout for commercial, office, and industrial uses planned for and analyzed in the City’s adopted 2030 General Plan EIR and 2030 General Plan that were certified and adopted in 2009. In response to the City’s growth trajectory, the City Council directed staff to prepare the Plan to manage and direct changes in the development patterns and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provision, open space, and community benefits.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1428
*ROI
&RXUVH
.HKRH $YH
QG $YH
0DSOH 6W
6 % 6W
6 *U DQW 6W
7LOWRQ $YH
+LOOHU 6W
6KHOO %OYG
6 1RUIRON 6W
0DULQH 3 NZ\
,QGX VWULDO5G
( UG $YH

6XJDUORDI 2SHQ
6SDFH
6DQ
/$85(/
)267(5 &,7<
%(/0217
6$1 0$7(2
8SSHU
U\VWDO
SULQJV

V HUYRLU
&DQDGD 5G
0HO HQG\ 'U
%ULW WDQ $YH
&DQDGD 5G
3XOJDV 5LGJH
2SHQ 6SDFH
3UHVHUYH
+LGGHQ &DQ\RQ
3DUN
& G & OO
(0(5$/'
/$.( +,//6
3$/20$5
3$5.
6$1 &$5/26
5HGZRRG
6KRUHV
/DJRRQ
%LUG
,VODQG
%DLU
,VODQG
%HDFK 3D
UN %OYG
6PLWK 6ORXJK
0\UWO H 6W
(OP 6W
(DW R Q
$YH
6HDSRUW
%OYG
-H IIHUVRQ
$YH
:KLSSOH $YH
0LGG OHILHOG
K
V
HUWRQ $YH
,QGXVWULDO 5G
%D\VKRUH )Z\



0HQOR
1257+
2$.
5(':22'
-81&7,21
5(':22'
&,7<

SACRAMENTO SONOMA
SAN

FRANCISCO
MARIN
NAPA
SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA

STANISLAUS

SAN MATEO

SANTA CRUZ
Woodland
Santa Rosa
Sacramento
Napa
Fairfield
San Rafael
Martinez
San Francisco
Oakland
Stockton
Redwood City
San Jose
Santa Cruz
1 ?3URMHFWV??5HSRUWV?%$?%$DSU[
101 0.5
Miles
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan %LRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW(4715-01) 0D\ 202
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Plan
Area
California
Plan Area

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1429
Belmont Creek
1 ?3URMHFWV??5HSRUWV?%$?%$DSU[ 360 0 360 180 Feet Plan Area Figure 2. Plan Area
6DQ&DUORV1RUWKHDVW$UHD6SHFLILF3ODQ%LRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW 

0D\ 202
Holly St


Harbor Blvd
Industrial Rd

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1430
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
4 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

1.3 Project Background
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 will manage and direct changes in the development patterns within the Plan area and guide present and future land uses, zoning changes, economic development, urban design, infrastructure, transportation circulation management and mobility, service provisions, and community benefits.

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

Table 1. Plan Development Projections
Land Use Allowable Square Footage Net Increase
Light Industrial 4,456,000
Residential Mixed-Use 1,890,000 (1,890 units)
Institutional 52,000
Net Increase Total 6,398,000 (4,508,000 without housing)

1.3.1 Resiliency Standards
The southeastern corner of the Plan area located within the 100 year flood zone. Development within the 100- year flood zone would be required to elevate the first floor above the 100 year base flood elevation. To address flood risk and reduce impacts on existing drainage infrastructure, the Plan would require that all development implement the following resiliency standards summarized in Table 2.

The Plan also includes additional standards in the Sea Level Priority Zone and Creek Front Zone. The Sea Level Priority Zone encompasses the historical San Francisco Bay Shoreline. The Creek Front Zone is the area directly adjacent to Belmont Creek. The Plan would increase the setback from Belmont Creek for properties undergoing redevelopment adjacent to Belmont Creek to 35 feet from top of bank.

Table 2. Resiliency Development Standards
Standard Description
Plan-Wide Development Standards
Open Space Dedication For properties greater than two acres (gross), new development shall dedicate 15 percent of the
total site area toward open space. All new open

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1431
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
5 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Standard Description
space shall adhere to the landscaping standards
in Chapter 18.18 of the SCMC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flooding Adaptation All new development within the Plan, regardless of whether the site is located within the 100-year
flood zone shall adhere to the San Carlos
Municipal Code, Chapter 15.56 - Flood Damage
Prevention.

Critical site infrastructure (such as transformers and
generators) shall be elevated to provide resilience

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1432
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
6 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Standard Description
to current and future flooding conditions in the
area.

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

For any new development within a 100-year flood
zone, the project would be required to set the
finished floor elevation above the 100-year base
flood elevation (BFE).1
Sea Level Rise Future development shall assess sea level rise risk for the site and elevate the finished floor elevation
of the new building further above the 100-year BFE
to provide resiliency to future sea level rise (year
2050).

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

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

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

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

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

1 This does not account for any elevation for future sea level rise.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1433
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
7 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Standard Description
Riparian Bank The first 25 feet from the top of bank shall consist of native riparian vegetation. This area, an
interface between the creek and the terrestrial
environment supports diverse habitats, and helps
maintain water quality by preventing erosion and
filtering pollutants.

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

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

1.3.2 Project Objectives
The primary purposes of the proposed project are to develop policies and standards to guide new development in the northeast area of San Carlos over a 20-year horizon and to:
x Allow for Light Industrial and Residential Mixed-Use development to celebrate the area’s industrial legacy and leverage new opportunities for Research and Development and Offices in a way that supports existing and new businesses, residents, and the overall community. x Introduce housing in the area, balancing the need for living wage jobs, while identifying land to accommodate future population growth in San Carlos and support future Housing Element cycles. x Support industrial access and provide multi-modal options to enhance walkability, bikeability, public transportation, and vehicular transportation.
x Address flooding and other environmental issues through a robust resilience framework including Belmont Creek improvements and green stormwater infrastructure.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1434
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
8 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 2. Methods

2.1 Background Review
Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed the Specific Plan description provided by David J. Powers & Associates through January 2023; aerial images (Google LLC 2025); a USGS topographic map; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2025); and other relevant reports, scientific literature, and technical databases. In addition, we perused records of birds reported in nearby areas on eBird (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025) and on the Peninsula-Birding List Serve (2025). For the purposes of this report, the Plan area vicinity is defined as the area within a 5-mile radius surrounding the Plan area.

In addition, for plants, we reviewed all species on current California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B lists occurring in the Plan area vicinity by querying species known to occur on the Palo Alto, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles (San Mateo, Redwood Point, Newark, Woodside, Mountain View, La Honda, Mindego Hill, and Cupertino) (CNPS 2025a). In addition, we queried the CNDDB (2025) for natural communities of special concern that occur within the Plan area. Plant taxonomy follows the Jepson Flora Project (2025).

These resources were re-checked in February 2025 prior to analysis of impacts to biological resources.

2.2 Site Visits
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the Plan area was conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates senior plant ecologist Katie Gallagher, M.S., and wildlife ecologist Emily Malkauskas, B.S., on January 10, 2023. The purpose of this survey was to (1) assess existing biotic habitats and plant and animal communities within the Plan area, (2) assess the Plan area for its potential to support special-status species and their habitats, and (3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, such as waters of the U.S./state and riparian habitat. In addition, E. Malkauskas assessed buildings and trees within the Plan area for their suitability to support roosting bats, and conducted a focused survey for nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), during the January 10, 2023 survey. E. Malkauskas conducted a more focused evaluation of buildings in the Plan area on April 17, 2025 to determine which buildings had reasonable potential to support bat roosts. During this latter survey, the biologist was only able to inspect buildings’ exteriors, and therefore determinations regarding the potential for certain buildings to support bat roosts are preliminary.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1435
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
9 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 3. Regulatory Setting
Biological resources within the Plan area are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as described below.

3.1 Federal Regulations

3.1.1 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) functions to maintain and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the U.S., which include, but are not limited to, tributaries to traditionally navigable waters currently or historically used for interstate or foreign commerce, and adjacent wetlands. Historically, in non-tidal waters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water (OHW) mark, which is defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 328.3. If there are wetlands adjacent to channelized features, the limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHW mark to the outer edges of the wetlands.

Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S. are termed “isolated wetlands” and, depending on the circumstances, may be subject to USACE jurisdiction. In tidal waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the landward extent of vegetation associated with salt or brackish water or the high tide line. The high tide line is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 328.3 as “the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide.” If there are wetlands adjacent to channelized features, the limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHW mark or high tide line to the outer edges of the wetlands. A May 25, 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency limited the definition of jurisdictional wetlands that are considered waters of the U.S. to those wetlands having a continuous surface connection with traditional navigable waters.

Section 404 of the CWA authorizes USACE to issue permits to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of Section 401 Water Quality Certification. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California.

Project Applicability: Belmont Creek and several unnamed channels within the Plan area, including wetlands and aquatic habitats in these channels up to the OHW mark, would likely be considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under the CWA. However, development under the Plan would not include any impacts to wetlands or other waters, and thus, no permit from the USACE would be necessary for Plan activities.

3.1.2 Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of waters of the U.S., including discharge of fill and the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1436
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
10 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
structures without Congressional approval or authorization by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army (33 U.S.C. 403).

Navigable waters of the U.S., which are defined in 33 CFR, Part 329.4, include all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and/or those which are presently or have historically been used to transport commerce. The shoreward jurisdictional limit of tidal waters is further defined in 33 CFR, Part 329.12 as “the line on the shore reached by the plane of the mean (average) high water.” It is important to understand that the USACE does not regulate wetlands under Section 10, only the aquatic or open waters component of bay habitat, and that there is overlap between Section 10 jurisdiction and Section 404 jurisdiction. According to 33 CFR, Part 329.9, a waterbody that was once navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character as “navigable in law” even though it is not presently used for commerce as a result of changed conditions and/or the presence of obstructions. Historical Section 10 waters may occur behind levees in areas that are not currently exposed to tidal or muted-tidal influence, and meet the following criteria: (1) the area is presently at or below the mean high water line; (2) the area was historically at or below mean high water in its “unobstructed, natural state”; and (3) there is no evidence that the area was ever above mean high water.

As mentioned above, Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the USACE to issue permits to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. If a project also proposes to discharge dredged or fill material and/or introduce other potential obstructions in navigable waters of the U.S., a Letter of Permission authorizing these impacts must be obtained from the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Project Applicability: No current Section 10 Waters are present on or adjacent to the Plan area. Historically, tidal channels and sloughs overlapped the eastern portion of the site (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2023). However, it is unlikely that any of the channels on the site are below mean high water elevation, as all on-site channels are nontidal, and thus it is unlikely that any historical Section 10 waters are present on the site. Therefore, no Section 10 Letter of Permission permit from the USACE would be necessary for Plan activities.

3.1.3 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects federally listed wildlife species from harm or take, which is broadly defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as take even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under the FESA only if they occur on federal lands.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service have jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened, and endangered species under FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under FESA, but may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1437
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
11 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Project Applicability: No suitable habitat for any federally endangered plant species is present within the Plan area.

The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), both of which are proposed for listing under FESA, may occur within the Plan area as nonbreeding foragers, and there is some potential for activities under the Specific Plan to result in impacts on these species if they are present. The monarch butterfly could breed in the Plan area (either now or in the future) if its larval hostplant, milkweed (Asclepias sp.), is planted (e.g., in landscaping). No additional federally listed, proposed, or candidate animal species occur or potentially occur within the Plan area.

The federally threatened southern green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) and Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and federally endangered California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), may occur in tidal marsh habitats downstream of the Plan area along Belmont Creek. In the absence of measures to protect water quality, activities under the Specific Plan may affect these species indirectly (e.g., by affecting water quality or modifying hydrology in Belmont Creek).

3.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. Section 703, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA protects whole birds, parts of birds, and bird eggs and nests, and it prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the USFWS in its June 14, 2018 memorandum “Destruction and Relocation of Migratory Bird Nest Contents”. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet contain eggs) and inactive nests are not protected from destruction.

Project Applicability: All native bird species that occur within the Plan area are protected under the MBTA.

3.2 State Regulations

3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The SWRCB works in coordination with the nine RWQCBs to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. Each RWQCB makes decisions related to water quality for its region, and may approve, with or without conditions, or deny projects that could affect waters of the state. Their authority comes from the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne). Porter-Cologne broadly defines waters of the state as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Because Porter-Cologne applies to any water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters, California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and may exceed the boundaries of waters of the U.S. For example, Water Quality Order No.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1438
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
12 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
2004-0004-DWQ states that “shallow” waters of the state include headwaters, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Moreover, the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB’s Assistant Executive Director has stated that, in practice, the RWQCBs claim jurisdiction over riparian areas. Where riparian habitat is not present, such as may be the case at headwaters, jurisdiction is taken to the top of bank.

On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. In these new guidelines, riparian habitats are not specifically described as waters of the state but instead as important buffer habitats to streams that do conform to the State Wetland Definition.

The Procedures describe riparian habitat buffers as important resources that may both be included in required mitigation packages for permits for impacts to waters of the state, as well as areas requiring permit authorization from the RWQCBs to impact.

Pursuant to the CWA, projects that are regulated by the USACE must also obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that a proposed project will uphold state water quality standards. Because California’s jurisdiction to regulate its water resources is much broader than that of the federal government, proposed impacts on waters of the state require Water Quality Certification even if the area occurs outside of USACE jurisdiction. Moreover, the RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the USACE does not. Under the Porter-Cologne, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also have the responsibility of granting CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Waste Discharge Requirements for certain point-source and non-point discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety of urban sources.

Project Applicability: Belmont Creek and several unnamed channels within the Plan area, including the bed (aquatic and wetland habitat) and banks up to the top of bank, as well as the limited riparian habitat associated with these channels, would likely be considered waters of the state. However, development under the Plan would not include any impacts to wetlands or other waters, and thus, no Porter-Cologne Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB would be necessary for Plan activities.

3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050- 2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA, the CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species (Fish and Game Code 2070). The CDFW regulates activities that may result in take of individuals (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of take under the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW, however, has interpreted take to include the “killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat modification.”
Project Applicability: No suitable habitat is present within the Plan area for any state-listed plant or animal species.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1439
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
13 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
The state threatened tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) may occur on the site occasionally as a nonbreeder.

In addition, the state threatened California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) and longfin smelt, as well as the state endangered California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, may occur in tidal marsh habitats downstream of the Plan area along Belmont Creek. In the absence of measures to protect water quality, activities under the Specific Plan may affect these species indirectly (e.g., by affecting water quality or modifying hydrology in Belmont Creek).

3.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), enacted in 1977, allows plants to be designated as rare or endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900–1913). The NPPA includes prohibitions on the take of such plants, with exceptions for certain activities. A total of 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are considered “rare” by the NPPA.

Project Applicability: No suitable habitat is present within the Plan area for any state-rare plant species.

3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code
Ephemeral and intermittent streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue line streams on USGS maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance may also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. A stream is defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 1.72, as “a body of water that follows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish and other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Using this definition, CDFW extends its jurisdiction to encompass riparian habitats that function as a part of a watercourse. California Fish and Game Code Section 2786 defines riparian habitat as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to and which depends upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.” The lateral extent of a stream and associated riparian habitat that would fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW can be measured in several ways, depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife at risk. At minimum, CDFW would claim jurisdiction over a stream’s bed and bank. Where riparian habitat is present, the outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats.

Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1603, CDFW regulates any project proposed by any person that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds.” California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW of any proposed activity that may modify a river, stream, or lake. If CDFW determines that proposed activities may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) must be prepared. The LSAA sets

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1440
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
14 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
reasonable conditions necessary to protect fish and wildlife, and must comply with CEQA. The applicant may then proceed with the activity in accordance with the final LSAA.

Certain sections of the California Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to protection of certain wildlife species. For example, Code Section 2000 prohibits take of any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided by other sections of the code.

The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW. Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”
Bats and other non-game mammals are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, which states that all non-game mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except as provided otherwise in the code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission. Activities resulting in mortality of nongame mammals (e.g., destruction of an occupied nonbreeding bat roost, resulting in the death of bats), or disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), may be considered take by the CDFW.

Project Applicability: Belmont Creek and several unnamed channels within the Plan area, including the bed (aquatic and wetland habitat) and banks up to the top of bank, as well as the limited riparian habitat associated with these channels, is likely to be regulated by CDFW. However, development under the Plan would not include any impacts to stream or riparian habitats, and thus, no LSAA from the CDFW would be necessary for Plan activities.

Most native bird, mammal, and other wildlife species that occur within the Plan area and in the immediate vicinity are protected under the California Fish and Game Code.

3.2.5 State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Regulation Construction Phase. Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to 1 acre or greater must comply with state requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended and administratively extended). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the SWRCB describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality until the site is stabilized.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1441
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
15 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit requires that the applicant utilize various measures including: on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors. Additionally, the Construction General Permit does not extend coverage to projects if stormwater discharge-related activities are likely to jeopardize the continued existence, or result in take of any federally listed endangered or threatened species.

Post-Construction Phase. In many Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County, projects must also comply with the California RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Water Board Order No. R2-2022-0018, as amended). This permit requires that all projects implement BMPs and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design that prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume of water coming from a site. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors.

Project Applicability. Projects performed under the Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of the NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit and Statewide General Construction Permit. Therefore, constructionphase activities would not result in detrimental water quality effects on biological or regulated resources.

3.3 Local Regulations

3.3.1 City of San Carlos Tree Ordinance
The City of San Carlos provides tree protection under Municipal Code Chapter 18.18.070 Trees. This ordinance defines a protected tree as any California buckeye (Aesculus californica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglassii), or interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) with a diameter at breast height (DBH) (54 inches above grade) of 9 inches or greater; any coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) with a DBH of 15 inches or greater; any California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) with a DBH of 15 inches or greater; or any other tree that with a DBH of 11 inches or greater with the exception of Bailey acacia (Acacia baileyana), green acacia (Acacia decurrens), black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), tree of heaven (Aillianthus altissima), fruit trees of any kind, Monterey pine (Pinus radiate), trees in the genus Eucalyptus, and monocot trees including palms and relatives. The ordinance defines requirements related to the removal, pruning, or alteration of protected trees, and requires a permit for these activities. The City Arborist may require replacement of trees as part of a project’s permit.

Project Applicability: Trees potentially subject to the City’s tree ordinance are present within the Plan area, and some will likely be removed by projects under the Specific Plan. Projects will apply for a tree removal permit and comply with any requirements related to protected trees that will be removed or modified.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1442
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
16 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

3.3.2 City of San Carlos Stream Development and Maintenance Overlay District For all lots and sites where any portion of the property is within 25 feet of the top of bank of Belmont Creek, the City of San Carlos has been requiring all new development, including buildings and paved areas, to be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the top of bank line of the creek, or other such distance as specified by the Planning Commission. The only activities allowed within the setback are those related to storm drainage, erosion control, and streambank stability improvements that comply with the following standards and have been approved by the City and appropriate resource agencies:
x Storm drain outflows and associated drainage facilities shall be designed to eliminate or minimize increases in the rate and amount of stormwater discharge.
x Vegetation shall not be cut or removed except for normal maintenance, to facilitate drainage, prevent flooding, and to permit adequate flow of water. Such cutting or removal of vegetation shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary, with special care to avoid removal of vegetation immediately adjacent to the banks of the stream.
x Fill, grading, or excavation for purposes of low-intensity, passive recreation or conservation uses may be allowed with conditional use permit approval. Such activities shall be kept to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish its aims and designed and executed so as to minimize erosion, sedimentation or runoff in or into the stream channel.
x Minor restoration or maintenance necessary to prevent flooding, reduce siltation, remove debris, and minor weed abatement activity necessary to protect life or property or otherwise provide for the public health and safety may be approved by the City.

Except in emergencies, these activities are required to occur during the dry season, defined as April 15 to October 15. All erodible slopes and surfaces exposed by the work are required to be hydromulched or secured by equally effective erosion control prior to October 15, to the satisfaction of the City engineer.

The Specific Plan would increase the setback from Belmont Creek for properties undergoing redevelopment adjacent to Belmont Creek to 35 feet from top of bank
Project Applicability: All portions of the Plan area within 35 feet of the top of bank of Belmont Creek would comply with the City’s Stream Development and Maintenance Overlay District requirements, as updated by the Plan, which include guidance for allowable uses within the stream setback.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1443
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
17 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 4. Environmental Setting

4.1 General Specific Plan Area Description
The approximately 145-acre Plan area is located in northeast San Carlos in San Mateo County, California (Figure 1). Based on 30-year climate normals from 1991 through 2020, the Plan area receives an average of approximately 19.0 inches of annual precipitation and has a mean annual temperature range of 49.5°–68.3°F (PRISM 2025). Elevations within the Plan area range from approximately 7 feet to 30 feet above sea level (Google LLC 2025). The Plan area is underlain by four soil units: Orthents, cut and fill-urban land complex, 0– 15% slopes; Urban land, Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex, 0–5% slopes; and Urban land-Orthents, reclaimed complex, 0–2% slopes (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2025). The Orthents, cut and fill urban land complex soil type typically consists of variable soils types from a depth of 0–60 inches, whereas the urban land complex does not have a typical soil profile due to anthropogenic influences such as grading and urbanization. Urban land-Orthents is an alluvial soil type with a variable profile to a depth of 60 inches. Urban land-Orthents reclaimed complex has a variable soil profile from 0–40 inches and a silty clay profile from 40– 60 inches. None of the soils that overlay the Plan area are hydric, and all are considered well-drained.

4.2 Biotic Habitats
The reconnaissance-level survey identified four habitat types/land uses within the Plan area:
developed/landscaped (143.2 acres), riparian (1.2 acres), freshwater marsh (0.6 acre), and aquatic riverine (0.4 acre); these habitats are described in detail below, and Figure 3 provides a map of these habitats within the Plan area.

4.2.1 Developed/Landscaped
Vegetation. The Plan area is developed as an
industrial area with aging industrial buildings as well as sidewalks, asphalt parking lots, a hospital,
numerous paved roads, and associated ornamental
landscape vegetation (Photo 1). The buildings are
typically connected via sidewalks lined with
ornamental landscaped mature trees such as
eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.). The hospital is
surrounded by large fields composed entirely of a
perennial grass that appears similar to clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis), which is a commonly
planted native turf “grass”.

Photo 1. Developed/landscaped habitat
within the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1444
Belmont Creek
1 ?3URMHFWV??5HSRUWV?%$?%$DSU[ 360 0 360 180 Feet Plan Area
Creek and Channel Corridors
Top of BankOrdinary High Water MarkEdge of Riparian Canopy Biotic Habitats
Developed/Landscaped (143.2 acres)Riparian (1.2 acres)Freshwater Marsh (0.6 acre)Aquatic Riverine (0.4 acre) Figure 3. Biotic Habitats
6DQ&DUORV1RUWKHDVW$UHD6SHFLILF3ODQ%LRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW 

0D\ 202
Holly St
Inset 1
1 2
3 4
Inset 4
Inset 2
Inset 3
Inset 5
5 Inset 6
6 Inset 7
7 


Harbor Blvd
Industrial Rd
Inset 8
8 10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1445
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
19 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
West of Quarry Road and perpendicular to Belmont Creek, a narrow strip of grasses characteristic of common California annual grassland species has established in an area of exposed bedrock in between two parking areas.

This area contains nonnative brome grasses (Bromus spp.), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), as well as one native coyote brush (Baccharis pilaris) individual. Because this area is extremely limited in size and encompassed by developed areas, it is mapped as developed/landscaped rather than as a separate biotic habitat.

Wildlife. Wildlife species that are associated with the developed/landscaped habitat in the Plan area are adapted to high levels of human disturbance. Mammals that occur in this area include introduced species such as the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), and house mouse (Mus musculus) as well as common native species such as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). While native California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) are common in the region, no burrows of this species were observed during the January 2023 reconnaissance-level survey. Nonnative eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) are common in the Plan area. A few species of common, urban-adapted reptiles, such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), are also common in the Plan area.

A variety of regionally common bird species will nest and forage in trees and landscape vegetation within developed portions of the Plan area, including the native Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), as well as the nonnative Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto). Cavities in trees and buildings provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting birds such as the native chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), and nonnative European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Eaves and ledges of buildings within the Plan area provide nesting sites for certain bird species that nest and roost on structures, such as the native black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), as well as the nonnative rock pigeon (Columba livia) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).

The native barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), white-throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), and hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus) are migrants that winter in Central and South America and breed in North America. Swifts and swallows construct nests on buildings, bridges, and other structures, while hooded orioles nest in nonnative palm trees commonly found in landscape areas. A number of winter resident and migrant birds will also rest and forage in landscape trees and vegetation within the Plan area. These include the cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), ruby-crowned kinglet (Corthylio calendula), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), and pine siskin (Spinus pinus).

Regionally widespread species of raptors will also use the Plan area. Resident species such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) will forage for prey within the Plan area, and large trees such as eucalyptus and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) provide potential nesting sites these species. Although the Plan area is ostensibly large enough to support several raptor nesting territories, foraging resources in the Plan area are limited due to the extensive hardscape, and only 1–2 pairs of raptors, if any, would be expected to nest within the Plan area at a given time. No old raptor nests were observed

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1446
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
20 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
in the Plan area during the January 2023 survey, suggesting that raptors have not nested within the Plan area in recent years. Several additional raptor species, such as the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and merlin (Falco columbarius), occur in low numbers throughout the Plan area in migration and winter. The small mammal, passerine (perching birds), and reptile species discussed above provide prey for these raptor species.

Some buildings in the Plan area, especially those that have not been occupied for long periods of time, provide suitable roosting habitat for common species of bats, such as the California myotis (Myotis californicus), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). During an April 17, 2025, a wildlife ecologist determined that most buildings in the Plan area do not have potential to support bat roosts (Figure 4). Most other buildings could potentially support roosting bats if they are unoccupied by humans, though such buildings are currently occupied and thus are not expected to provide suitable conditions for use by roosting bats. A few buildings, indicated in orange on Figure 4, appear suitable to support bat roosts under existing conditions (Figure 4), with potential ingress/egress points identified. Although no evidence of active bat roosts was observed on building exteriors during either the January 2023 or April 2025 site visit, all surveys considered only the visible exteriors of buildings, and no examination of building interiors or acoustic surveys to determine presence/absence of roosting bats within buildings in the Plan area occurred. No trees with cavities suitable for large bat colonies or crevices suitable for individual roosting bats were observed within the Plan area. In summary, it is possible that some buildings in the Plan area could support roosting bats, including both large and small maternity and non-maternity colonies, especially if they are not occupied by human activity.

4.2.2 Riparian
Vegetation. Riparian habitat is present along
Belmont Creek and several drainage channels within
the Plan area (Photo 2). Along Belmont Creek,
willows rooted in riprap banks at the upstream end
of the creek had been recently cleared at the time of
the January 2023 site visit, with only their stumps and lower branches remaining. Elsewhere along the
creek, woody overstory vegetation includes native
tree species such as mature arroyo willows (Salix
lasiolepis) and red alder (Alnus rubra). Other tree
species include nonnatives such as silver wattle
(Acacia dealbata), privet (Ligustrum sp.), and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis). Where there are breaks in the cover of woody vegetation, midstory woody vegetation includes native California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) as well as nonnative Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and French broom (Genista monspessulana).

Herbaceous understory vegetation mostly consists of nonnative brome grasses, Bermuda buttercup, cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and garden nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus). At the time of the January 2023 site visit, the banks of Belmont Creek had been recently overtopped due to the previous day’s large storm event.

Photo 2. Photo of mature willows in riparian
habitat along Belmont Creek.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1447
Belmont Creek
1 ?3URMHFWV??5HSRUWV?%DW5RRVWV?%DW5RRVWVDSU[ 300 0 300 150 Feet m
Figure. Potential Bat Roost Sites
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan (4715-01)
0D\ 2025

Z[
Harbor Blvd
Industrial Rd

Plan Area
Potential Bat Roost Sites
Currently SuitablePotentially Suitable if Building is Unoccupied

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1448
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
22 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
The unnamed channels in the Plan area have very few native tree species compared to Belmont Creek, and are dominated by nonnative silver wattle, privet, Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), London plane tree (Platanus x hispanica), and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). These channels also do not have midstory woody vegetation as described for Belmont Creek above. Instead, they support a herbaceous understory that is dominated by nonnative and invasive ground covers including annual brome grasses, Bermuda buttercup, cheeseweed, common stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), fennel, and English ivy (Hedera helix). This vegetation had been recently mown along several of the unnamed channels.

Wildlife. Riparian habitats in California generally support diverse animal communities and contribute disproportionately to landscape-level species diversity, relative to surrounding upland habitats. In addition to providing breeding, foraging, and roosting habitat for a diverse array of animals, riparian communities provide movement corridors for some species, connecting a variety of habitats throughout a region. The ecological value of riparian habitats in the Plan area is limited considerably by the narrow nature of the riparian corridors, paucity of native riparian habitat, and proximity to urban development and high human-use areas. Nevertheless, due to the presence of moderately dense and well-layered vegetation along Belmont Creek, the riparian habitat along this creek is of moderate value to wildlife, particularly those species that are tolerant of or associated with the adjacent developed areas. Riparian habitat that is present along the other channels in the Plan area, which is much less dense and well-layered, provides relatively low-value habitat for wildlife species.

Resident bird species that nest and forage in the riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area include many of the species that inhabit surrounding developed/landscaped areas, such as the Anna’s hummingbird, lesser goldfinch, house finch, bushtit, California towhee, and dark-eyed junco.

In addition, several resident species that are associated with aquatic and freshwater marsh vegetation will nest and forage in this habitat, such as the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Due to the limited extent of the riparian habitat in the Plan area, as well as high levels of disturbance from surrounding development, only small numbers of these birds are expected to nest and forage in this habitat.

Although many of the native riparian trees in the Plan area are deciduous, and thus provide limited cover in winter, this habitat supports fairly large numbers of foraging birds during migration and winter due to the presence of dense midstory and understory vegetation as well as abundant invertebrate prey, especially along Belmont Creek. Thus, a number of common migrant and wintering birds will rest and forage in this habitat in the Plan area, albeit in low numbers due to the limited extent of this habitat. These include migrant and wintering species that are found in surrounding developed/landscaped areas such as the yellow-rumped warbler, white-crowned sparrow, golden-crowned sparrow, and ruby-crowned kinglet. In addition, several migrants and wintering birds that are associated with riparian habitats, such as the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), and Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), will use this habitat in low numbers.

Raptor species that occur in the surrounding areas such as the resident red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and Cooper’s hawk will forage for prey within the riparian habitats in the Plan area; however, no trees within

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1449
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
23 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
this habitat are large enough to provide suitable nesting sites for these species. Several additional raptor species, such as the sharp-shinned hawk and merlin, may also forage in this habitat in low numbers during migration and winter.

Southern alligator lizards (Elgaria multicarinata) and western fence lizards will forage for insects in riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area. Urban-adapted mammals, such as the native raccoon and striped skunk, as well as the nonnative Virginia opossum, Norway rat, black rat, and feral cat (Felis catus) occur within this habitat as well. No cavities large enough to support colonies of roosting bats, or crevices small enough to support individual bats, were observed within any of the trees in the riparian habitat during the January 2023 site visit.

4.2.3 Freshwater Marsh
Vegetation. Freshwater marsh vegetation is located
in sparse clusters at the toes of slopes and/or in the
low-flow channels of Belmont Creek and the
unnamed channels in the Plan area (Photo 3). These
clusters consist almost entirely of cattail (Typha sp.), but several limited areas of freshwater marsh
vegetation are dominated by native species other than
cattail such as bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.), fat-hen
(Atriplex prostrata), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and resprouting swordleaf rush (Juncus ensifolius). The
margins of these freshwater marsh areas are
dominated by nonnative annual herbaceous weeds in the small ecotones where marsh vegetation transitions to upland vegetation on creek and channel slopes. It is likely that the high storm flows that occurred during the January 2023 site visit obscured observation of freshwater marsh vegetation along Belmont Creek and in channels with high water levels; therefore, the extent of freshwater marsh vegetation in the Plan area under more normal circumstances may be greater than what was mapped during the site visit. No evidence that the freshwater marsh vegetation in the Plan area is regularly cleared (e.g., for flood control) was observed during the January 2023 site visit. Rather, the lack of dense marsh vegetation in the channels appears to be the result of periodic scour from high flows.

Wildlife. Freshwater marshes often provide habitat for a distinctive suite of wetland-associated wildlife species.

However, the small size and patchy distribution of the freshwater marsh vegetation in the Plan area, coupled with disturbance from immediately adjacent developed areas, reduces the quality of this habitat for many wetland-associated wildlife species. Due to these factors, many wildlife species that inhabit more extensive marshes in the region, such as the Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), are not expected to be present in the marsh habitat within Plan area.

Photo 1. Freshwater marsh vegetation along
an unnamed channel in the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1450
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
24 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Certain marsh-nesting birds such as the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), a California species of special concern, are known to nest and forage in narrow marsh habitats such as those in the Plan area; however, the marsh habitat in the Plan area is of relatively low quality for these species due to its limited extent, patchy distribution, and high levels of immediately adjacent human disturbance. As a result, few pairs of these species are expected to nest in the Plan area, if any.

However, marsh-associated bird species that inhabit smaller marshes and are tolerant of adjacent human disturbances, especially those that can use adjacent herbaceous riparian vegetation, will nest and forage in this habitat. These include the song sparrow and marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris). Common nonbreeding avian foragers in this habitat include wading birds such as the great egret (Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and green heron (Butorides virescens). Common amphibians such as the native Pacific tree frog (Hyliola regilla) and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) as well as the nonnative bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeiana) also breed and forage in freshwater marsh habitat in the Plan area.

4.2.4 Aquatic Riverine
Vegetation. Aquatic riverine habitat in the Plan area
consists of the low-flow channels of Belmont Creek
and the unnamed channels (Photo 4). Belmont Creek
and the two larger unnamed channels in the Plan area
(i.e., the two channels that flow southwest to
northeast from Industrial Road to U.S. Route 101)
are perennial and contain water year-round, while the
smaller channels that flow along the northeast and
southeast peripheries of the Plan area are
intermittent. The January 2023 site visit took place
during a series of storm events that were unusually
large compared to the local climate normals (PRISM
2025). As a result, the water in the creek and channels was opaque due to high levels of suspended sediment, but is likely to be clearer in the drier seasons. The depth of the aquatic habitat could not be accurately measured during the site visit; however, aquatic depths in the Plan area likely range from several inches to several feet. Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area have natural substrates, with the exception of the unnamed channel along the southern/southwestern edge of the Plan area, which is concrete-lined. Aquatic plants may grow in these channels, but none were visible in January 2023 due to the opaque water. The water velocity in the channels varied; many locations contained unusually swift flows, while others remained slow. The hydrology of the creek and channels is likely fed by groundwater, storm water runoff, irrigation run-off, and other anthropogenic sources.

It is unclear how the unnamed channels in the Plan area are connected downstream; however, we presume that all of the water in these channels enters culverts that transport this water via underground pipes to drainages that eventually reach the San Francisco Bay. Belmont Creek connects directly with Belmont Slough downstream, northwest of U.S. Route 101.

Photo 4. Aquatic riverine habitat in Belmont
Creek within the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1451
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
25 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

Wildlife. Belmont Creek provides habitat for several species of fish, such as the native threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Central California roach (Lavinia symmetricus symmetricus), and Sacramento hitch (Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda), as well as the nonnative rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) and western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Although the unnamed channels in the Plan area are assumed to be connected to the San Francisco Bay downstream, this connection occurs through presumably long underground pipes that do not provide suitable habitat for fish, and high flow velocities through such pipes would make it very difficult for fish to swim upstream into the Plan area during high flows. The shallow nature of the channels in the Plan area as well as the limited microhabitat heterogeneity (e.g., lack of pools) precludes the presence of a diverse assemblage of native fish species. However, fish that are tolerant of high water temperatures and low-quality habitat conditions, such as the nonnative western mosquitofish, may be present in these channels (especially if humans have introduced them here).

The native Pacific tree frog, as well as nonnative species such as the bullfrog and crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), which can move between waterbodies over land, may be present and breeding within Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area. These areas also provide foraging habitat for waterbirds such as the mallard, as well as wading birds such as the great egret, snowy egret, and green heron. Birds that forage aerially for invertebrates such as the black phoebe, barn swallow, and cliff swallow, as well as bats that roost in nearby areas such as the California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat, will forage over aquatic habitats in the Plan area.

4.3 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement within and in the vicinity of the Plan area takes many forms, and is different for the various suites of species associated with these lands. Bird and bat species move readily over the landscape in the Plan area vicinity, foraging over and within both natural lands and landscaped areas. Mammals of different species move within their home ranges, but also disperse between patches of habitat. Generally, reptiles and amphibians similarly settle within home ranges, sometimes moving to central breeding areas, upland refugia, or hibernacula in a predictable manner, but also dispersing to new areas. Some species, especially among the birds and bats, are migratory, moving into or through the Plan area vicinity during specific seasons. Aside from bats, there are no other mammal species in the vicinity of the Plan area that are truly migratory. However, the young of many mammal species disperse from their natal home ranges, sometimes moving over relatively long distances in search of new areas in which to establish.

Movement corridors are segments of habitat that provide linkage for wildlife through the mosaic of suitable and unsuitable habitat types found within a landscape while also providing cover. On a broader level, corridors also function as paths along which wide-ranging animals can travel, populations can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters, and genetic interchange can occur. In California, environmental corridors often consist of riparian areas along streams, rivers, or other natural features.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1452
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
26 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

4.3.1 Movement by Fish, Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians Belmont Creek provides a movement corridor for fish and other aquatic species, as well as mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Fish and aquatic species will utilize aquatic habitat along Belmont Creek to move southwest to northeast through the Plan area, while terrestrial species such as mammals, amphibians, and reptiles will utilize understory vegetation along the creek as cover when migrating or dispersing through the Plan area. Birds, including several species of waterfowl and wading birds, will also utilize this corridor and the vegetative cover present along the creek as they move through the landscape.

The unnamed channels in the Plan area also provide movement corridors for wildlife. However, because these channels connect to other aquatic habitat in the vicinity via underground pipes, they do not provide high-quality movement corridors for fish and other aquatic wildlife species. Terrestrial species such as mammals, amphibians, and reptiles will make short, local movements along these channels, especially where trees and understory vegetation are present to provide cover and foraging opportunities. However, the lack of connectivity between the unnamed channels and high-quality habitats off-site, due to the intensity of urban development, precludes the use of these channels for longer-distance regional movement by wildlife.

Due to the presence of development throughout and surrounding the Plan area, no other well-defined or important movement corridors are present within the Plan area. Wildlife species may move through the developed portions of the Plan area using cover and refugia as they find them available. However, most dispersal by wildlife species in the Plan area vicinity likely occurs within higher-quality habitats present in natural sloughs, marshes, and aquatic habitat areas located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the Plan area.

4.3.2 Pacific Flyway Stopover
Moderate numbers of migratory songbirds are often concentrated at the edge of the San Francisco Bay during spring and fall migration. The Plan area is located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of baylands habitats, and is largely devoid of habitat areas that would support high numbers of birds, especially migratory birds, to be moving past the Plan area. The riparian habitat along Belmont Creek serves as the highest-quality movement corridor habitat for migrant songbirds within the Plan area, as described in Section 4.2.2 above, and these species are expected to utilize this habitat area to some extent as they travel along the San Francisco Peninsula.

However, no high-quality migratory stopover habitat, such as more extensive riparian habitat, oak woodland, or well-vegetated parks, is present within the Plan area. The nearest urban parks that provide habitat for larger numbers and higher diversities of birds are Twin Pines Park 0.3 mile to the west, Bair Island State Marine Park

0.5 mile to the east, and Water Dog Open Space preserve 1.7 miles to the west (Google LLC 2025).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1453
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
27 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 5. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of the environmental review of the project, special-status species have been defined as described below. Impacts on these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances described in Section 3 above.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
x Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
x Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. x Listed by the CNPS as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
x Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
x Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. x Designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern. x Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515).

Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that potentially occur within the Plan area was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described in Section 2.1 above. Figure 5 depicts CNDDB records of special-status plant species in the general vicinity of the Plan area and Figure 6 depicts CNDDB records of special-status animal species. These generalized maps show areas where special-status species are known to occur or have occurred historically.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1454
6HUSHQWLQH%XQFKJUDVV
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
6HUSHQWLQH%XQFKJUDVV
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
6HUSHQWLQH%XQFKJUDVV
6HUSHQWLQH%XQFKJUDVV
9DOOH\1HHGOHJUDVV*UDVVODQG
1RUWKHUQ&RDVWDO6DOW0DUVK
9DOOH\1HHGOHJUDVV*UDVVODQG
6HUSHQWLQH%XQFKJUDVV
9DOOH\2DN:RRGODQG
1RUWKHUQ0DULWLPH&KDSDUUDO
9DOOH\1HHGOHJUDVV*UDVVODQG
9DOOH\2DN:RRGODQG
6HUSHQWLQH%XQFKJUDVV
ORVWWKLVWOH
VDOLQHFORYHU
IUDJUDQWIULWLOODU\
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
DONDOLPLONYHWFK
6DQ0DWHRWKRUQPLQW URXQGKHDGHGFROOLQVLD
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
ZRRGODQGZRROO\WKUHDGV
EHQWIORZHUHGILGGOHQHFN
FRDVWDOPDUVKPLONYHWFK
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
.LQJV0RXQWDLQPDQ]DQLWD
FKDSDUUDOUDJZRUW
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
+LOOVERURXJKFKRFRODWHOLO\
6DQ)UDQFLVFRRZO
VFORYHU
&RQJGRQ
VWDUSODQW
QRUWKHUQVOHQGHUSRQGZHHG
3RLQW5H\HVVDOW\ELUG
VEHDN
3RLQW5H\HVVDOW\ELUG
VEHDN
3RLQW5H\HVVDOW\ELUG
VEHDN
+RRYHU
VEXWWRQFHOHU\
FKDSDUUDOUDJZRUW
ZRRGODQGZRROO\WKUHDGV
ZRRGODQGZRROO\WKUHDGV
ZKLWHUD\HGSHQWDFKDHWD
6DQ)UDQFLVFRRZO
VFORYHU
+RRYHU
VEXWWRQFHOHU\
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
ZKLWHUD\HGSHQWDFKDHWD
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFDPSLRQ
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
2UHJRQSROHPRQLXP
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
.LQJV0RXQWDLQPDQ]DQLWD
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
&DOLIRUQLDVHDEOLWH
IUDJUDQWIULWLOODU\
VKRUWOHDYHGHYD[
.LQJV0RXQWDLQPDQ]DQLWD
6FRXOHU
VFDWFKIO\
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
6DQ0DWHRWKRUQPLQW
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLD
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
3RLQW5H\HVVDOW\ELUG
VEHDN
6DQ)UDQFLVFRRZO
VFORYHU
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
IUDJUDQWIULWLOODU\
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLD
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLDEHQWIORZHUHGILGGOHQHFN
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
0HWKXVHODK
VEHDUGOLFKHQ
6DQ0DWHRZRROO\VXQIORZHU
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
.HOORJJ
VKRUNHOLD
IUDJUDQWIULWLOODU\
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
ZKLWHUD\HGSHQWDFKDHWD
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
IRXQWDLQWKLVWOH
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
IRXQWDLQWKLVWOH
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
ZKLWHUD\HGSHQWDFKDHWD
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
0DULQZHVWHUQIOD[
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
.LQJV0RXQWDLQPDQ]DQLWD
6DQ0DWHRZRROO\VXQIORZHU
6DQ0DWHRZRROO\VXQIORZHU
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLD
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
&RQJGRQ
VWDUSODQW
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLD
ZHVWHUQOHDWKHUZRRG
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
.LQJV0RXQWDLQPDQ]DQLWD
EHQWIORZHUHGILGGOHQHFN
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
)UDQFLVFDQRQLRQ
6DQ0DWHRZRROO\VXQIORZHU
DUFXDWHEXVKPDOORZ
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
6DQ)UDQFLVFRFROOLQVLD
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLD
6DQ0DWHRZRROO\VXQIORZHU
&U\VWDO6SULQJVOHVVLQJLD
&KRULV
SRSFRUQIORZHU
Figure . CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Plants 6DQ&DUORV1RUWKHDVW$UHD6SHFLILF3ODQ%LRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW 

0D\ 202
   
0LOHV
Plan Area Location5-mile Radius
CNDDB Records
N:\Projects4700\4715-01\Reports\BA\BA.aprx
Specific LocationApproximate LocationGeneral Area
Plants
General Area
Terrestrial Communities

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1455
ORQJILQVPHOW
JUHHQVWXUJHRQVRXWKHUQ'36
SDOOLGEDW
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
KRDU\EDW
KRDU\EDW
KRDU\EDW
KRDU\EDW
\HOORZUDLO
\HOORZUDLO
3DFLILFZDONHU
QRUWKHUQKDUULHU
VKRUWHDUHGRZO
SDOOLGEDW
\HOORZUDLO
$PHULFDQEDGJHU
QRUWKHUQKDUULHU
&DOLIRUQLDOHDVWWHUQ
ZHVWHUQEXPEOHEHH
ZHVWHUQEXPEOHEHH
ZHVWHUQEXPEOHEHH
ZHVWHUQEXPEOHEHH
REVFXUHEXPEOHEHH
KRDU\EDW
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
&DOLIRUQLDOHDVWWHUQ
ZHVWHUQEXPEOHEHH
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
6DQWD&UX]NDQJDURRUDW
6DQWD&UX]NDQJDURRUDW
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
0\UWOH
VVLOYHUVSRWEXWWHUIO\
SDOOLGEDW
KRDU\EDW
\HOORZUDLO &DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ REVFXUHEXPEOHEHH
&URWFKEXPEOHEHH
SDOOLGEDW
5LFNVHFNHU
VZDWHUVFDYHQJHUEHHWOH
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
(GJHZRRG3DUNPLFUREOLQGKDUYHVWPDQ
EDQNVZDOORZ
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
PDUEOHGPXUUHOHW
ZHVWHUQEXPEOHEHH
REVFXUHEXPEOHEHH
&DOLIRUQLDJLDQWVDODPDQGHU
%D\FKHFNHUVSRWEXWWHUIO\
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
IRRWKLOO\HOORZOHJJHGIURJFHQWUDOFRDVW'36
6DQWD&UX]NDQJDURRUDW
&DOLIRUQLDEODFNUDLO
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
IRRWKLOO\HOORZOHJJHGIURJFHQWUDOFRDVW'36
ZHVWHUQULGJHGPXVVHO
ZKLWHWDLOHGNLWH
GRXEOHFUHVWHGFRUPRUDQW
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
&DOLIRUQLDEODFNUDLO
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
&DOLIRUQLDEODFNUDLO
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
VWHHOKHDGFHQWUDO&DOLIRUQLDFRDVW'36
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
6DQWD&UX]EODFNVDODPDQGHU
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
&DOLIRUQLDEODFNUDLO
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
PDUEOHGPXUUHOHW
IRRWKLOO\HOORZOHJJHGIURJFHQWUDOFRDVW'36
&DOLIRUQLDEODFNUDLO
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
EXUURZLQJRZO
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
EXUURZLQJRZO
VWHHOKHDGFHQWUDO&DOLIRUQLDFRDVW'36
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
ZKLWHWDLOHGNLWH
ZKLWHWDLOHGNLWH
ZKLWHWDLOHGNLWH
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
%D\FKHFNHUVSRWEXWWHUIO\
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
&DOLIRUQLDOHDVWWHUQ
&DOLIRUQLDOHDVWWHUQ
&DOLIRUQLDOHDVWWHUQ
VDOWPDUVKZDQGHULQJVKUHZ
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
0LVVLRQEOXHEXWWHUIO\
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
ZHVWHUQVQRZ\SORYHU
%D\FKHFNHUVSRWEXWWHUIO\
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
VDOWPDUVKZDQGHULQJVKUHZ
(GJHZRRGEOLQGKDUYHVWPDQ
(GJHZRRGEOLQGKDUYHVWPDQ
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
6DQ)UDQFLVFRIRUNWDLOGDPVHOIO\
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
5LFNVHFNHU
VZDWHUVFDYHQJHUEHHWOH
%D\FKHFNHUVSRWEXWWHUIO\
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
EXUURZLQJRZO
PRQDUFK&DOLIRUQLDRYHUZLQWHULQJSRSXODWLRQ
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
6DQ%UXQRHOILQEXWWHUIO\
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
&DOLIRUQLDJLDQWVDODPDQGHU
VDOWPDUVKZDQGHULQJVKUHZ
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
%D\FKHFNHUVSRWEXWWHUIO\
VWHHOKHDGFHQWUDO&DOLIRUQLDFRDVW'36
&DOLIRUQLDJLDQWVDODPDQGHU
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
JUHDWEOXHKHURQ ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOHZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
$ODPHGDVRQJVSDUURZ
&DOLIRUQLD5LGJZD\
VUDLO
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
GRXEOHFUHVWHGFRUPRUDQW
ZHVWHUQSRQGWXUWOH
&DOLIRUQLDJLDQWVDODPDQGHU
VDOWPDUVKKDUYHVWPRXVH
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
VDOWPDUVKFRPPRQ\HOORZWKURDW
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
6DQ)UDQFLVFRGXVN\IRRWHGZRRGUDW
VWHHOKHDGFHQWUDO&DOLIRUQLDFRDVW'36
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&5/)
&76
&76
&76
Figure . CNDDB-Mapped Records of Special-Status Animals 6DQ&DUORV1RUWKHDVW$UHD6SHFLILF3ODQ%LRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW 

0D\ 202
   
0LOHV
Project LocationSpecific LocationApproximate LocationGeneral Area Wildlife
General Area
Aquatic
5-mile Radius
CNDDB Records
N:\Projects4700\4715-01\Reports\BA\BA.aprx
Note: CTS = California Tiger Salamander,CRLF = California Red-legged Frog

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1456
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
30 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

5.1 Special-Status Plant Species
The CNPS (2025a) and CNDDB (2025) identify a total of 96 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding the Plan area for CRPR 1, 2 3, and 4 species. All of these species were determined to be absent from the Plan area for at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range within the Plan area; and/or (4) the species is considered extirpated from the Plan area vicinity. The majority of the Plan area is developed, with the only undeveloped areas consisting of Belmont Creek, the unnamed channels, and their associated riparian habitat. Due to the nature of the creek and channels, which are engineered, not in their historical alignments, and subject to high-volume scouring flows in the winter, the aquatic habitat and freshwater marsh vegetation along these channels would not be considered suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant that are known to occur in wetlands and aquatic habitats in the region. Similarly, the riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels is dominated by either dense thickets of arroyo willow, which has a sparse to absent understory; dense thickets of nonnative ground covers such as Himalayan blackberry or nasturtium, or nonnative annual grasses. As such, these areas do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plants that are known from the region.

5.2 Special-Status Animal Species
The legal status and likelihood of occurrence within the Plan area of special-status animal species known to occur, or potentially occurring, in the surrounding region are presented in Table 1. Most of the special-status species listed in Table 1 are not expected to occur within the Plan area because it lacks suitable habitat, is outside the known range of the species, and/or is isolated from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat.

The following special-status species that are present in specialized habitats on the San Francisco Peninsula, or that occurred on or near the Peninsula historically but are no longer present, are absent from the Plan area due to a lack of suitable habitat and/or isolation of the site from populations by urbanization: the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). While bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) may fly over the Plan area at times, none are expected to nest or forage within or near the Plan area itself. In addition, a focused survey of the Plan area for nests of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats during our field survey determined that the species is absent from the site.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1457
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
31 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Special-status bird species that may occasionally occur within the Plan area as nonbreeding foragers, but that do not nest on the site, include the tricolored blackbird, Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus), and American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). In addition, the Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) and yellow warbler are bird species that are considered a California species of special concern only when nesting; they may occur occasionally within the Plan area as nonbreeding transients, foragers, or migrants, but no suitable nesting habitat for these species occurs within or adjacent to the Plan area. The western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) may also occur within the Plan area as an occasional nonbreeder. These species are not expected to breed on or immediately adjacent to the Plan area due to a lack of suitable habitat, and they will be affected very little, if at all, by development under the Specific Plan.

The monarch butterfly, northwestern pond turtle, San Francisco common yellowthroat, white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) can potentially breed or occur on or immediately adjacent to the Plan area and/or may be impacted by Specific Plan activities.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1458
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
32 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Table 3. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential for Occurrence in the Plan Area Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan AreaFederal or State Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate SpeciesMonarch butterfly(Danaus plexippus) FPT Requires milkweeds
(Asclepias spp.) for egglaying and larval development, but adults obtain nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants in many habitats. Individuals congregate in winter roosts, primarily in Mexico and in widely scattered locations on the central and southern California coast.

May be Present. The monarch butterfly occurs throughout the region primarily as a migrant. No larval host plants were observed within the Plan area during the January 2023 survey; however, portions of the site are maintained by mowing, and milkweeds, if present, would not have been detectable. If milkweeds are present, monarch butterflies may breed within the Plan area from March through October. However, due to the limited size of potentially suitable habitat within the Plan area and regular human disturbance (e.g., from mowing and landscape activities), only small numbers of monarch butterflies are expected to breed there, if any. Small numbers of individuals may forage throughout the Plan area, especially during spring and fall migration. However, the site does not provide high-quality foraging habitat for this species. While ostensibly suitable overwintering habitat for monarchs (i.e., eucalyptus trees) is present within the Plan area, no current or historical overwintering sites are known within or near the Plan area; the nearest known overwintering location is 5.3miles to the north Coyote Point Park in San Mateo (Xerces Society 2025).

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
SC Open grassland and scrub
habitats.

Absent. Although this species was historically found throughout the southern two-thirds of California, population declines and range contractions (25% relative to its historical range) have made this species very scarce in the region (CDFW 2019). There are no recent (i.e., after 1909) records on the San Francisco Peninsula (Bumble Bee Watch 2025, CNDDB 2025, iNaturalist 2025), and CNDDB (2025) does not include even historical records from San Mateo County. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur within the Plan area.

Western bumble bee(Bombus occidentalis)
SC Occurs in a variety of
grassland, scrub, and open woodland habitats.

Absent. Although the species was historically found throughout much of central and northern California, including the Plan area vicinity, it has been extirpated from much of its former range, and there are no recent records from San Mateo County or nearby areas (CDFW 2019, Bumble Bee Watch 2025, iNaturalist 2025). Therefore, this species is absent from the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1459
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
33 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan AreaGreen sturgeon(Acipenser medirostris) FT, CSSC Spawns in large river
systems such as the Sacramento River; forages in nearshore oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries.

Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas). Green sturgeon are relatively rare in the South San Francisco Bay and may forage infrequently and in low numbers in lower, tidal reaches of Belmont Creek. However, the reach of Belmont Creek within the Plan area is not tidal (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2023), and no suitable spawning habitat is present in or upstream of Belmont Creek. Thus, the species may occur in Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area as an occasional forager, but it is absent from the Plan area itself.

Longfin smelt(Spirinchus thaleichthys)
FE, ST Spawns in fresh water in
the upper end of the San Francisco Bay; may occur year-round in the South Bay.

Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas). Longfin smelt are known to occur in the San Francisco Bay and its estuaries. However, the species does not typically occur in nontidal portions of streams connecting to the San Francisco Bay (Leidy 2007).Because the reach of Belmont Creek within the Plan area is nontidal (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2023), no suitable habitat for longfin smelt is present in the Plan area. However, individuals may be present and breeding in tidal portions of Belmont Creek and Belmont Slough downstream.

Central California Coast steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) FT Cool streams with suitable
spawning habitat and conditions allowing migration between spawning and marine habitats.

Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas). Steelhead were not found in Belmont Creek during fish sampling in the 1980s (Leidy 1984, Leidy et al. 2005) and are thought to be absent from the Belmont Creek watershed (Becker et al. 2007). Due to the very narrow nature of the reach of Belmont Creek southwest of (upstream from) Highway 101, coupled with the absence of suitable spawning habitat from the Belmont Creek watershed, this species is not expected to occur in or immediately adjacent to the Plan area. The species may occur in Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area as an occasional forager, but it isabsent from the Plan area itself.

California tiger salamander(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, ST Vernal or temporary pools
in annual grasslands or open woodlands. Adults live terrestrially in small mammal burrows.

Absent. The California tiger salamander’s range on the San Francisco Peninsula historically occurred barely as far northwest as Woodside and Palo Alto, and the nearest record of this species to the Plan area that is considered “extant” by the CDFW is located approximately 14.1 miles to the southwest along San Francisquito Creek (CNDDB 2025). That population is located far beyond the known dispersal distance of the species, and is separated from the Plan area by extensive urbanization. Therefore, this species is determined to be absent.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1460
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
34 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan AreaCalifornia red-legged frog(Rana draytonii) FT, CSSC Streams, freshwater pools,
and ponds with emergent or overhanging vegetation.

Absent. The California red-legged frog is known to occur 3.3 miles to the west at Crystal Springs Reservoir. However, this species has been extirpated from the majority of the Plan area region, and the Plan area is too isolated and distant from existing breeding populations to sustain a population of red-legged frogs. Thus, California red-legged frogs are determined to be absent from the Plan area.

San Francisco garter snake(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) FE, SE, SP Prefer densely vegetated
freshwater habitats. May use upland burrows for aestivation.

Absent. The San Francisco garter snake occurs at very few locations in San Mateo County. The only known population of San Francisco garter snakes on the east side of the San Francisco peninsula occurs near the San Francisco International Airport, 16.4miles to the northwest. No suitable habitat for this species is present within the Plan area, which is isolated from the nearest known remaining populations by extensive urbanization. Thus, this species is determined to be absent.

Northwestern pond turtle(Actinemys pallida)
FPT, CSSC Permanent or nearly
permanent water in a variety of habitats.

May be Present as Nonbreeder. The nearest CNDDB (2025) record is 3.5 miles to the west near the Crystal Springs Reservoir. Suitable foraging habitat for northwestern pond turtles may be present within Belmont Creek and along the unnamed channels in the Plan area. However, breeding populations of northwestern pond turtles have been extirpated from most urbanized areas in the Plan area region. Nevertheless, it is possible that occasional pond turtles from populations in freshwater habitats upstream in Belmont Creek could potentially disperse downstream to Belmont Creek, and overland to other channels in the Plan area, although they would be expected to do so in extremely low numbers, if at all.

Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
SE, SP Occurs mainly along
seacoasts, rivers, and lakes; nests in tall trees or in cliffs, occasionally on electrical towers. Feeds mostly on fish.

Absent. Bald eagles are known to nest in the Plan area vicinity at inland reservoirs and along the coast, including at Crystal Springs Reservoir approximately 3.5 miles west of the Plan area. However, no suitable nesting or foraging habitat for bald eagles is present in or adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Determined to be absent.

California Ridgway’s rail(Rallus obsoletus obsoletus)
FE, SE, SP Salt marsh habitat
dominated by pickleweed and cordgrass.

Absent (may be Present as Nonbreeder in Downstream Areas).

Annual surveys conducted for California Ridgway’s rails as part of the Invasive Spartina Project detected Ridgway’s rails during the 2021 breeding season approximately 1.0 mile northeast of the Plan area along Corkscrew Slough (Olofson Environmental 2022).

However, no marsh habitat is present within the Plan area to

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1461
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
35 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan Area provide habitat for this species. Further, the marsh habitat along Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area does not provide high-quality nesting habitat for California Ridgway’s rails due to the narrow width of the marsh habitat, the short and sparse vegetation present, the regular inundation of this habitat by daily tides, and high levels of adjacent human disturbance. This species typically nests and forages in broader salt or brackish marshes with well-developed tidal channels (conditions that are absent from Belmont Creek near the Plan area). Thus, if Ridgway’s rails occur along Belmont Creek at all, they are expected to occur only as occasional foragers. They are not expected to nest in portions of the marsh within 700 feet (the typical no-disturbance buffer distance for this species) of the Plan area.

California black rail(Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) ST, SP Nests in fresh, brackish, and
tidal salt marsh.

Absent (may be Present as Nonbreeder in Downstream Areas).

Few black rails have been observed in marshes on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula, and most recent records are from the nonbreeding season (CNDDB 2025). No marsh habitat to support this species is present in the Plan area, and the marsh habitat downstream of the Plan area in Belmont Creek does not provide suitable nesting habitat for black rails due to the narrow width of the marsh habitat; the short, sparse vegetation present; the regular inundation of this habitat by daily tides; and high levels of adjacent human disturbance. This habitat does provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for black rails. Thus, at most, stray individuals may forage along Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area infrequently and in low numbers, if at all.

Western snowy plover(Charadrius nivosus nivosus)
FT, CSSC Sandy beaches on marine
and estuarine shores and salt pans in San Francisco Bay saline managed ponds.

Absent. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for snowy plovers occurs in the Plan area due to a lack of suitable salt pan habitat and high levels of human disturbance. Snowy plover nests were observed on salt evaporator ponds in the Bair Island area 2.0 milesto the east of the Plan area in 1975–1976 (CNDDB 2025). However, snowy plovers are no longer known to nest at Bair Island. No critical habitat for snowy plovers has been designated within, or in the vicinity of, the Plan area (USFWS 2012).

California least tern(Sternula antillarum browni)
FE, SE, SP Nests along the coast on
bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates. In the South Bay, nests in salt pannes and on an old Absent. Least terns are not known or expected to nest on or adjacent to the Plan area. In 1976, least terns nested on dried salt evaporator ponds 5–6 miles to the southeast (CNDDB 2025), but least terns are no longer known to nest at these locations. Least terns forage primarily in managed ponds and over the open Bay

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1462
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
36 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan Area airport runway. Forages for fish in open waters.
and have not been observed foraging in narrow tidal sloughs (such as the portion of Belmont Creek within the Plan area). Thus, least terns are not expected to forage on or downstream of the Plan area. The Plan area also lacks suitable roosting habitat, as immediately adjacent human disturbance precludes the use of upland areas as least tern roost sites, and no such least tern roosts have been observed in these areas.

Burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia)
SC, CSSC Nests and roosts in open
grasslands and ruderal habitats with suitable burrows, usually those made by California ground squirrels.

Absent. Historically, burrowing owls nested approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the Plan area near Bair Island (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001), but nesting in this area is not a regular occurrence. Burrowing owls have also been observed during the winter months in various locations surrounding the Plan area, but have not been recorded within the Plan area itself (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025). Burrows of California ground squirrels suitable for nesting and roosting by burrowing owls are not currently present within or adjacent to the Plan area, and burrowing owls are not expected to occur within the Plan area due to the absence of small mammal burrows and high levels of human disturbance.

Tricolored blackbird(Agelaius tricolor)
ST Nests near fresh water in
dense emergent vegetation.

May be Present as Nonbreeder. Tricolored blackbirds typically nest in extensive stands of tall emergent herbaceous vegetation in nontidal freshwater marshes and ponds. However, the freshwater marsh habitat in the Plan area is too small and fragmented to support a nesting colony of this species. This species has not been recorded nesting on or near the Plan area. However, tricolored blackbirds may forage within the Plan area during the nonbreeding season.

Salt marsh harvest mouse(Reithrodontomys raviventris)
FE, SE, SP Salt marsh habitat
dominated by common pickleweed. Also occurs in diked and brackish marshes, nontidal wetlands, and some adjacent upland habitats.

Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas). Salt marsh harvest mice have been documented along Belmont Creek approximately 1.9 miles north (2.4 mi downstream) of the Plan area, as well as in marshes at the end of the Redwood Shores Peninsula (Shellhammer 2005). However, individuals that occur in tidal marsh habitats downstream are not expected to be able to travel several miles along the narrow marsh habitat and beneath U.S. Route 101 to reach the Plan area.

California Species of Special Concern
Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon
CSSC Cool rivers and large
streams that reach the
Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas). No suitable spawning habitat for this species occurs in Belmont Creek. The

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1463
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
37 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan Area(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ocean and that have shallow, partly shaded pools, riffles, and runs. status of salmonid use of the Belmont Creek watershed is unknown, but Chinook salmon are not known to spawn in Belmont Creek (Leidy et al. 2005). Due to the very narrow nature of the reach of Belmont Creek southwest of (upstream from) Highway 101, coupled with the absence of suitable spawning habitat from the Belmont Creek watershed, this species is not expected to occur in or immediately adjacent to the Plan area. The species may occur in Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area as an occasional forager, but it is absent from the Plan area itself.

Pacific lamprey(Entosphenus tridentatus)
CSSC Medium- and large-sized,
low-gradient cold rivers and streams, with a wide range of habitats (e.g., gravel, low-gradient riffles).

Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas).Pacific lamprey arenot known to occur in Belmont Creek (Leidy et al. 2005). Due to the very narrow nature of the reach of Belmont Creek southwest of (upstream from) Highway 101, coupled with the absence of suitable spawning habitat from the Belmont Creek watershed, this species is not expected to occur in or immediately adjacent to the Plan area. The species may occur in Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area as an occasional forager, but it is absent from the Plan area itself.

Central California roach(Lavinia symmetricus symmetricus) CSSC Generally found in small
streams, they are well adapted to intermittent watercourses (e.g., tolerant of high temperatures and low oxygen levels).

May be Present. Central California roach are not known to occur in Belmont Creek (Leidy et al. 2005). However, this species occurs widely, often in unshaded pools with warm temperatures, and thus the possibility that it can occur within the reach of Belmont Creek within the Plan area cannot be ruled out.

Sacramento hitch(Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda)
CSSC Warm, lowland, waters
including clear streams, turbid sloughs, lakes, and reservoirs. Has a high tolerance for varying stream conditions and water temperature.

May be Present. Sacramento hitch are not known to occur in Belmont Creek (Leidy et al. 2005). However, this species occurs widely and has a high tolerance of stream conditions and water temperatures, and thus the possibility that it can occur within the reach of Belmont Creek within the Plan area cannot be ruled out.

Riffle sculpin(Cottus gulosus)
CSSC Permanent, cool,
headwater streams with an abundance of riffles and rocky substrates.

Absent. Riffle sculpin are not known to occur in Belmont Creek (Leidy et al. 2005). This cold-water, upper-watershed species is not expected to use the warmer waters in the reach of Belmont Creek in the Plan area.

Black skimmer(Rynchops niger)
CSSC (nesting) Nests on abandoned
levees and islands in saline
Absent. No suitable islands for nesting are present within the Plan area, and the creek and channels in the Plan area too narrow to

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1464
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
38 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan Area managed ponds and marshes.
support foraging by this species. Thus, black skimmers are not expected to occur within or adjacent to the Plan area.

Northern harrier(Circus hudsonius)
CSSC (nesting) Nests in marshes and moist
fields, forages over open areas.

Absent. Northern harriers nest at Bair Island and may nest in larger, more remote marsh habitats along lower Belmont Creek, and are common foragers along Belmont Creek and Belmont Slough north of U.S. Route 101. However, habitat within and immediately adjacent to the Plan area is not suitable for nesting or foraging by northern harriers due to its developed nature and high levels of human disturbance. In addition, due to the proximity of human disturbance, northern harriers are not expected to nest close enough (i.e., within 300 feet) to the Plan area to be disturbed by activities under the Specific Plan. Determined to be absent.

Vaux’s swift(Chaetura vauxi)
CSSC (nesting) Nests in snags in coastal
coniferous forests or, occasionally, in chimneys. Forages aerially over many habitats.

May be Present as Nonbreeder. Vaux’s swifts are not known to nest in the San Carlos area (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001). No snags or chimneys are present on or immediately adjacent to the Plan area to provide suitable sites for nesting. Occasional migrants forage aerially over the Plan area.

Loggerhead shrike(Lanius ludovicianus)
CSSC (nesting) Nests in tall shrubs and
dense trees; forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats.

Absent. This species is known to nest in eastern San Mateo County (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001). Shrubs and trees on and adjacent to the Plan area provide ostensibly suitable nesting habitat for loggerhead shrikes, and the limited areas of grasslands in the Plan area (especially surrounding the hospital) provide ostensibly suitable foraging habitat. However, the regional loggerhead shrike population has declined substantially in recent years, and this species is not expected to occur within the Plan area due to the limited extent of the available habitat. Rather, loggerhead shrikes that occur in the vicinity are expected to occur in higher-quality habitat to the west along the edges of the San Francisco Bay. Determined to be absent.

Yellow warbler(Setophaga petechia)
CSSC (nesting) Nests in riparian woodland
and scrub, forages in a variety of habitat types.

May be Present as Nonbreeder. Yellow warblers are common migrants in the Plan area and surrounding vicinity, and may use the riparian habitat along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels for resting and foraging during spring and fall migration. However, they are not known or expected to nest in the Plan area due to the absence of suitably extensive riparian habitat, and this species is considered a species of special concern only when nesting.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1465
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
39 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan AreaSan Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) CSSC Nests in herbaceous
vegetation, usually inwetlands or moist floodplains.

May be Present. Common yellowthroats occur year-round in marshes of the Redwood Shores peninsula (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025). The marsh habitat and adjacent herbaceous riparian vegetation along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. However, due to the limited extent and patchy distribution of this habitat, as well as high levels of human disturbance, only small numbers of common yellowthroats (e.g., 1–2 pairs) are expected to nest within the Plan area, if any.

Alameda song sparrow(Melospiza melodia pusillula)
CSSC Nests in salt marsh habitat,
primarily in marsh gumplant and cordgrass along channels.

May be Present as Nonbreeder (may be Present in Downstream Areas). Suitable vegetation for nesting by Alameda song sparrows is present in salt marsh habitat along Belmont Creek downstream of the Plan area, north of U.S. Route 101. The location of the interface between populations of the Alameda song sparrow (pusillula) and the common race that breeds in freshwater riparian habitats in the region (gouldiii) is not definitive due to difficulties distinguishing these subspecies in the field. However, the pusillula subspecies is known to nest only in salt marsh habitats, which are absent from the Plan area. Individual song sparrows from several subspecies, including pusillula, may forage within the Plan area year-round.

Bryant’s savannah sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus) CSSC Nests in pickleweed
dominant salt marsh, adjacent ruderal habitat, moist grasslands, and, rarely, drier grasslands.

May be Present as Nonbreeder (may be Present in Downstream Areas). In the South San Francisco Bay, Bryant’s savannah sparrows nest primarily in short pickleweed-dominated portions of diked/muted tidal salt marsh habitat and in adjacent ruderal habitats (Rottenborn 2007). The marsh and ruderal habitats along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area do not provide suitable nesting habitat for Bryant’s savannah sparrows because these areas are nontidal (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2023) and the vegetation along the creek and channels is too narrow in extent to support nesting by this species. However, individuals may nest in suitable pickleweeddominated marsh habitat downstream of the Plan area along Belmont Creek and Belmont Slough. During the nonbreeding season, alaudinus and other savannah sparrow subspecies may forage in open habitats throughout the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1466
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
40 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan AreaGrasshopper sparrow(Ammodramus savannarum) CSSC(nesting)
Nests and forages in grasslands, meadows, fallow fields, and pastures.

Absent. No suitable extensive grassland habitat is present in the Plan area for this species.

Salt marsh wandering shrew(Sorex vagrans halicoetes)
CSSC Medium to high marsh 6–8
ft above sea level with abundant driftwood and common pickleweed.

Absent (may be Present in Downstream Areas). Salt marsh wandering shrews occur most often in medium-to-high wet tidal marsh (6–8 feet above sea level), with abundant driftwood and other debris for cover (Shellhammer 2000). Typically, they are found in fairly tall pickleweed, in which they build nests, and they may be found in Belmont Creek in areas of tall pickleweed. No suitable marsh habitat to support this species occurs in the Plan area, but suitable pickleweed-dominated habitat for this species occurs downstream of the Plan area in northern coastal salt marsh habitat along Belmont Slough. Individuals inhabiting this marsh habitat are not expected to travel along Belmont Creek andbeneath U.S. Route 101 to reach the Plan area.

Pallid bat(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC Forages over many
habitats; roosts in caves, rock outcrops, buildings, and hollow trees.

May be Present. Historically, pallid bats were likely present in a number of locations throughout the Plan area region, but their populations have declined in recent decades. Suitable roosting habitat for this species is present within the Plan area in unoccupied buildings. Although regular human disturbance limits the site’s suitability to support a maternity colony or day roost, and the presence of a colony of pallid bats within the Plan area is unlikely, individuals from colonies in the region may occasionally forage within the Plan area. Focused surveys would be necessary to determine whether this species roosts within the Plan area.

Townsend’s big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii)
CSSC Roosts in caves and mine
tunnels, and occasionally in deep crevices in trees such as redwoods or in abandoned buildings, in a variety of habitats.

May be Present. Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to occur in the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest (iNaturalist 2022). Suitable roosting habitat for this species is present within the Plan area in unoccupied buildings. Although regular human disturbance limits the site’s suitability to support a maternity colony or day roost, and the presence of a colony of Townsend’s bigeared bats within the Plan area is unlikely, individuals from colonies in the region (especially in the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest) could occasionally forage over the site. Focused surveys would be necessary to determine whether this species roosts within the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1467
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
41 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Name Regulatory Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Plan AreaWestern red bat(Lasiurus blossevillii) CSSC Roosts in foliage in forest or
woodlands, especially in or near riparian habitat.

May be Present as Nonbreeder. Individual western red bats occur in the Plan area vicinity in low numbers as migrants and winter residents, but this species does not breed in the region. Individualwestern red bats may roost in the foliage of trees virtually anywhere in the Plan area, but are expected to roost primarily in riparian areas. Occasional individuals may forage over the site year-round.

San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes
annectens)
CSSC Nests in a variety of
habitats including riparian areas, oak woodlands, and scrub.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is present within riparian habitats in the Plan area. However, no nests of this species were detected the site during the January 2023 focused survey. Determined to be absent.

State Fully Protected Species
Golden eagle(Aquila chrysaetos)
SP Nests on cliffs or in large
trees (rarely on electrical towers), forages in open areas.

Absent. Suitable nesting habitat is absent from the Plan area. Occasional nonbreeding individuals are observed in the San Carlos area infrequently (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025), but golden eagles are not known to nest in the vicinity. This species is expected to forage infrequently in open habitats in the Plan area region, such as at Bair Island, but is not expected to forage on or adjacent to the Plan area due to the limited extent of available foraging habitat and high levels of adjacent human disturbance.

White-tailed kite(Elanus leucurus)
SP Nests in tall shrubs and
trees, forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats.

May be Present. White-tailed kites are known to nest in eastern San Mateo County throughout the open areas bordering the San Francisco Bay (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2025). Suitable large trees for nesting are present in the Plan area, and up to one pair of white-tailed kites could nest in suitable nest trees in the Plan area. Individuals may forage occasionally within the Plan area year-round.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1468
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
42 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Other Special-Status SpeciesPacific harbor seal(Phoca vitulina richardsi) MMPA Throughout the northern
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along coastal waters, river mouths, and bays Absent. Harbor seals are permanent residents of the San Francisco Bay, and a primary haul-out site for harbor seals is located near the mouth of Belmont Creek 2.5 miles northeast (3.0 miles downstream) of the Plan area. However, the reach of Belmont Creek within the Plan area is nontidal, no pupping sites or suitable haul-out sites are present within or immediately downstream of this area, and the reach of Belmont Creek in the Plan area is too narrow and shallow to provide suitable foraging habitat. The species is thus determined to be absent.

Key to Abbreviations:Status: Federally Endangered (FE); Federally Threatened (FT); Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT); State Endangered (SE); State Threatened (ST); State Candidate (SC); State Fully Protected (SP); California Species of Special Concern (CSSC); Protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1469
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
43 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Vegetation Alliances, and Habitats
Natural communities have been considered part of the Natural Heritage Conservation triad, along with plants and animals of conservation significance, since the state inception of the Natural Heritage Program in 1979.

The CDFW determines the level of rarity and imperilment of vegetation types, and tracks sensitive communities in its Rarefind database (CNDDB 2025). Global rankings (G) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas state (S) rankings are a reflection of the condition of a habitat within California. Natural communities are defined using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology as follows (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012):

G1/S1: Critically imperiled
G2/S2: Imperiled
G3/S3: Vulnerable.

G4/S4: Apparently secure
G5/S4: Secure
In addition to tracking sensitive natural communities, the CDFW also ranks vegetation alliances, defined by repeating patterns of plants across a landscape that reflect climate, soil, water, disturbance, and other environmental factors (CNPS 2025b). If an alliance is marked G1-G3, all of the vegetation associations within it will also be of high priority. The CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2022).

Impacts on CDFW sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Appendix G of the California Code of Regulations). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats are also protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS.

5.3.1 Sensitive Natural Communities
A query of sensitive habitats in the CNDDB (2025) identified a single sensitive natural communities as occurring within nine 7.5-minute quadrangles on and surrounding the Plan area: northern coastal salt marsh (Rank G3/S3.2). Northern coastal salt marsh is characterized by Holland (1986) as occurring along sheltered inland margins of bays, often co-dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), and sometimes saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). None of these species, and no salt marsh habitats, occur within the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1470
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
44 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

5.3.2 Sensitive Vegetation Alliances
The riparian habitat along Belmont Creek contains small patches of arroyo willows, which could be considered an arroyo willow thicket (Salix lasiolepis) shrubland alliance (CNPS 2025b). This alliance has a global rank of G4 and a state rank of S4, indicating that it is “apparently secure” on both global and state-wide level, and thus, is not considered sensitive by VegCAMP (CDFW 2022). No additional sensitive vegetation alliances occur within the Plan area.

5.3.3 CDFW Riparian Habitat
The riparian habitat within the Plan area is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Impacts on riparian habitats along creek and drainage corridors are typically regulated by the CDFW because these habitats offer valuable resources for wildlife. Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code establishes jurisdiction over the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. CDFW riparian jurisdiction extends to the outer edge of riparian tree or shrub canopy along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels within the Plan area.

5.3.4 Sensitive Habitats (Waters of the U.S./State)
While a formal wetland delineation was not carried out as part of this analysis, the extent of the aquatic riverine and freshwater marsh habitat as shown on Figure 3 corresponds with what would be considered the OHW mark of Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels within the Plan area. The OHW mark represents the limits of USACE jurisdiction along each channel. The patches of freshwater marsh vegetation shown on Figure 3, which (as discussed above) may be more extensive than were mapped due to high flows at the time of the site visit, were all observed to be below what would be considered the OHW marks and therefore also within limits of USACE jurisdiction. The aquatic riverine habitat in the Plan area, as mapped on Figure 3, as well as any freshwater marsh habitat within the OHW marks of Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels, would be considered waters of the U.S. and waters of state. In addition, waters of the state would include the banks of these channels, as well as any riparian habitat rooted within their banks.

5.3.5 Nonnative and Invasive Species
Several nonnative, invasive plant species occur within the Plan area that have been ranked on their level of invasiveness (California Invasive Plant Council 2025). Of these, the following have a rating of “limited” invasiveness indicating they are considered invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level and their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness: Brazilian pepper tree, red stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and Canary Island date palm. The following species have a “moderate” rating, indicating that they have substantial and apparent–but generally not severe–ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure, and that their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment would be generally dependent upon ecological disturbance: fennel, shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), silver wattle, and Bermuda buttercup. Species with a “high” invasive rating have the potential to cause severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1471
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
45 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment, and most are widely distributed ecologically. On the Plan area, the following species with a “high” rating were observed: English ivy, French broom, and Himalayan blackberry.

In addition to nonnative plants, nonnative animals occur in the Specific Plan area. Nonnative animals such as the house mouse, Norway rat, black rat, eastern grey squirrel, European starling (Sturnis vulgaris), and feral cats can compete with and/or prey upon sensitive/native animals. These species are common in the developed areas in and surrounding the Plan area.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1472
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
46 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The State CEQA Guidelines provide direction for evaluating the impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project's impacts on biological resources are deemed significant if the project would:

A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community”
D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the Section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would:

A. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” B. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”
C. “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means”
D. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites”
E. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance”
F. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Potential impacts on existing biological resources were evaluated by comparing the quantity and quality of habitats present in the Plan area under baseline conditions to the anticipated conditions with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. Direct and indirect impacts on special-status species and sensitive natural

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1473
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
47 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
communities were assessed based on the potential for the species, their habitat, or the natural community in question to be disturbed or enhanced following implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.

6.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

6.1.1 Impacts on Developed/Landscaped Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Species (Less than Significant)
Construction activities under the Specific Plan will impact areas that are already developed and landscaped (Figure 3). As a result, there will be no conversion of habitat types from a more natural habitat to developed/landscaped habitat as a result of Specific Plan activities.

As discussed previously, the Plan area currently supports a number of common wildlife species, although due to its largely developed nature, the Plan area provides relatively low-quality habitat for most species and thus supports relatively small numbers of individuals of any one species. The common wildlife species that occur in upland habitats in the Plan area are regionally abundant, are present in widely available habitats in the region, and will continue to be present in some portions of the Plan area following construction. Additionally, development under the Plan would impact only a very small proportion of their regional populations, and the number of individuals likely to be displaced by habitat disturbance and loss would be quite small with respect to the amount of suitable habitat available in the area. Further, the Plan would result in an increase in vegetated open space, particularly along streams where habitat quality is (and could potentially be, with redevelopment) highest, by increasing open space requirements and increasing the setback from Belmont Creek for redevelopment activities. Thus, impacts on most common species and their habitats resulting from the implementation of projects under the Plan would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. Rather, the Specific Plan would improve habitat conditions for most species.

6.1.2 Impacts on Water Quality and Special-Status Species along Belmont Creek (Less than Significant)
No direct impacts are proposed to Belmont Creek or any other wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats.

Nevertheless, two fish that are California species of special concern (central California roach and Sacramento hitch) may occur in Belmont Creek along the northern edge of the Plan area, and a number of other specialstatus fish and marsh species occur along Belmont Creek and Belmont Slough downstream from the Plan area.

In the absence of measures to protect water quality, development under the Plan could adversely affect water quality, and in turn the habitat quality and health of those species.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1474
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
48 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
However, such impacts would be avoided and minimized by implementing erosion and sediment control measures, as well as best management practices (BMPs) for work near aquatic environments. Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to 1 acre or greater must comply with state requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Board describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of BMPs to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including: on-site sediment control BMPs, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors.

In many Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County, projects must also comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Water Board Order No. R2-2022-0018). This permit requires that all projects implement BMPs and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design to prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume of water coming from a site after construction has been completed. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors.

Further, the Specific Plan will require treatment of stormwater runoff, increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions will improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions. As a result, potential impacts of Plan activities on water quality and special-status fish and marsh species downstream from the Plan area would be less than significant.

6.1.3 Impacts on the Monarch Butterfly (Less than Significant) The monarch butterfly occurs in the Plan area primarily as a migrant. No larval host plants (milkweeds) were observed within the Plan area during the January 2023 survey; however, portions of the site are maintained by mowing, and milkweeds, if present, would not have been detectable at the time. If milkweeds are present, monarch butterflies may breed within the Plan area from March through October. However, due to the limited extent of potentially suitable habitat within the Plan area and regular human disturbance (e.g., from mowing and landscape activities), only small numbers of monarch butterflies are expected to breed there, if any. Small numbers of individuals may forage on flowering plants throughout the Plan area, especially during spring and fall migration. However, the site does not provide high-quality foraging habitat for this species. While ostensibly suitable overwintering habitat for monarchs (i.e., eucalyptus trees) is present within the Plan area, no current or historical overwintering sites are known within or near the Plan area; the nearest known overwintering location is 5.3 miles to the north Coyote Point Park in San Mateo (Xerces Society 2025).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1475
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
49 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Plan activities could impact monarch butterfly habitat by removing milkweeds (if present) and flowering plants that provide nectar sources. However, no high-quality habitat capable of supporting large numbers of monarchs is present in the Plan area, so habitat modification would not result in substantial impacts on populations of this species. Further, the Plan would involve increases in open space and increases in planting of native vegetation within stream buffers. As a result, the Plan would have an overall beneficial effect on habitat for monarchs, and no significant impact to monarch habitat would occur.

If monarchs are breeding in the Plan area, removal or disturbance of milkweed could result in the loss of eggs or larvae, and pupae could also be impacted if breeding is occurring. However, there is no evidence that large numbers of monarchs breed in the Plan area, if breeding occurs at all, so impacts to monarch eggs, larvae, or pupae would not result in substantial impacts on populations of this species. As a result, Plan impacts on the monarch butterfly would be less than significant.

6.1.4 Impacts on the Northwestern Pond Turtle (Less than Significant) Breeding populations of northwestern pond turtles have been extirpated from most urbanized areas in the Plan area region due to urbanization, predation, and development of upland nesting and dispersal habitat.

Nevertheless, suitable foraging habitat for northwestern pond turtles may be present within Belmont Creek and along the unnamed channels in the Plan area. It is possible that occasional pond turtles from populations in freshwater habitats upstream in Belmont Creek could disperse downstream to Belmont Creek, and overland to other channels in the Plan area.

In the absence of water quality protection measures, Plan activities could degrade foraging habitat for northwestern pond turtles within Belmont Creek. However, as discussed in Section 6.1.2, implementation of water quality measures will minimize such adverse effects.

If northwestern pond turtles are present in upland areas (e.g., during dispersal or attempts to find nest sites), construction activities could result in injury or mortality of turtles, or construction of new impediments to dispersal back to areas with more suitable habitat conditions, outside the Plan area. However, very few northwestern pond turtles (if any) are present, and because this species’ activities are confined primarily to waterbodies – which will not be directly impacted at all by Plan activities – the probability and magnitude of any impacts by Plan activities is very low.

Further, the Specific Plan will increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek (where turtles are most likely to occur in the Plan area) and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions will further reduce the likelihood of northwestern pond turtles being impacted by Plan activities and improve habitat conditions along streams. For all these reasons, potential impacts of Plan activities on the northwestern pond turtle would be less than significant.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1476
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
50 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025

6.1.5 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The San Francisco common yellowthroat (a California species of special concern) could potentially nest in marsh habitat and adjacent herbaceous riparian vegetation along Belmont Creek and the unnamed channels in the Plan area. However, due to the limited extent and patchy distribution of this habitat, as well as high levels of human disturbance, only small numbers of common yellowthroats (e.g., 1–2 pairs) are expected to nest within the Plan area. Similarly, it is possible that a pair of white-tailed kites (a state fully protected species) could nest in trees somewhere in the Plan area. In addition, a number of non-special-status bird species breed throughout the Plan area.

Redevelopment under the Plan would not result in the loss of suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the San Francisco common yellowthroat, as no activities are proposed within wetland or riparian habitat in the Plan area. However, vegetation removal could remove trees suitable for use by nesting white-tailed kites and could remove structures and vegetation used for nesting by a variety of other, non-special-status bird species. Further, demolition and construction activities that occur during the nesting season could physically impact nests with eggs or young and could cause a substantial increase in noise or human activity near active nests may result in the abandonment of active nests. In addition, heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by project activities could potentially disturb nesting and foraging individuals and cause them to move away from work areas.

Because the number of nesting pairs of San Francisco common yellowthroats and white-tailed kites that could be disturbed directly or indirectly is very small (i.e., 1–2 pairs of common yellowthroats and one pair of kites), the impacts of Plan redevelopment would represent a very small fraction of the regional population of these species. Similarly, the common bird species that nest in the Plan area are regionally abundant, are present in widely available habitats in the region, and will continue to be present in some portions of the Plan area following construction, so that development under the Plan would impact only a very small proportion of their regional populations, and the number of individuals likely to be displaced by habitat disturbance and loss would be quite small with respect to the amount of suitable habitat available in the area. The Plan would result in an increase in vegetated open space, particularly along streams where habitat quality is (and could potentially be, with redevelopment) highest, by increasing open space requirements and increasing the setback from Belmont Creek for redevelopment activities. Thus, impacts on regional populations of any one bird species resulting from Plan activities would be low. However, given the extent of the Plan area, the overall number of active nests of all bird species that are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, and that are impacted by Plan activities, could be relatively high, and would be considered significant under CEQA.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts of Plan activities on nesting birds to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Avoidance of Nesting Birds.
x Avoid Nesting-Season Construction if Feasible. To the extent feasible, demolition and construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1477
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
51 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in San Mateo County extends from February 1 through August 31, inclusive. x Conduct Pre-activity Survey for Active Nests. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities and/or tree removal between September 1 and January 31, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of demolition or construction activities, including tree removal and pruning. During this survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. x Provide a Buffer around Active Nests. If an active nest (i.e., a nest with eggs or young) is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code shall be disturbed during project implementation.

6.1.6 Impacts on Roosting Bats (Less than Significant with Mitigation) There is some potential for three special-status bat species that are designated as California species of special concern to occur in the Plan area. The pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat breed in the greater San Francisco Bay area, albeit primarily in areas that are less urban than the Plan area. Due the extent of human disturbance within the Plan area, the probability that either the pallid bat or Townsend’s big-eared bat breed (i.e., form maternity colonies) in the Plan area is very low. The third special-status bat species, western red bat, does not breed on the San Francisco Peninsula but could occur in the Plan area in small numbers as a migrant and wintering species, roosting solitarily in the foliage of trees. In addition to these special-status bats, common species of bats such as the California myotis, Mexican free-tailed bat, and big brown bat could roost in buildings.

No trees with cavities suitable for large bat colonies or crevices suitable for individual roosting bats were observed within the Plan area. Additionally, no evidence of active bat roosts was observed on building exteriors during the January 2023 or April 2025 site visit. However, focused surveys (e.g., examination of building interiors and acoustic surveys) to determine presence/absence of roosting bats within buildings in the Plan area were not performed; several buildings were determined to be suitable for use by roosting bats under existing conditions (Figure 4); and a number of other buildings were determined to be potentially suitable for use by roosting bats if unoccupied by human activity (Figure 4). Therefore, it is possible that buildings in the Plan area could support roosting bats, including both large and small maternity and non-maternity colonies, especially if they have not been occupied for long periods of time.

Impacts on the western red bat are less than significant because very few individuals will be impacted. This species occurs solitarily during migration and winter, rather than in large groups, and due to the urban nature of the Plan area, it is likely that very few individuals occur in the Plan area at any given time. If a western red

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1478
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
52 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
bat is present in a tree to be removed, the bat would flush when tree removal activities begin, avoiding direct injury or mortality. Bats that flush during the day would be subject to increased risk of predation by avian predators, but few western red bats (if any) are expected to be injured or killed as a result of Plan activities.

The demolition of any structures supporting a roost of other, cavity/crevice-roosting bat species would result in the direct physical disturbance of any roosting bats that may be present, possibly resulting in injury or mortality, as well as the loss of roosting sites. Building improvements and renovations could also result in such impacts if they affect areas where bats are present or if they block ingress or egress to roost sites; the kinds of improvements most likely to affect bats are those that physically alter the exteriors (including exterior walls), roofs, and attic-like spaces of buildings or that plug holes, cavities, or crevices that allow bats to enter or exit buildings supporting bats.

Demolition or renovation of structures during the bat maternity season (approximately April 1 to August 31) could result in the injury or mortality of young and lactating females within a roost site. Impacts on any pallid bats or Townsend’s big-eared bats, a large day roost (i.e., 20 or more bats) of common species of bats, or cumulative impacts on 20 or more common bats as multiple buildings are removed, would be considered a significant impact under CEQA, as this could have a substantial effect on regional populations of the species.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. Because many buildings may be removed or renovated under the Plan over a period of years, these measures will be implemented any time buildings depicted as “Currently Suitable” on Figure 4 are demolished or renovated, or any time buildings depicted as “Potentially Suitable if Building is Unoccupied” on Figure 4 are demolished or renovated if such buildings have been unoccupied by human use for more than 1 month prior to demolition/renovation.

Loss of a bat roost as a result of demolition or renovation of buildings in the Plan area is not expected to result in a substantial loss of roosting opportunities in the San Carlos area. The assessment of the bat habitat during the January 2023 biological survey or April 2025 bat habitat assessment did not identify any buildings that were obviously of such unique or high-quality character, from the perspective of bat habitat, that the buildings would provide habitat that is not present in numerous other buildings and locations in the San Carlos area. If a building supporting a bat roost is removed or renovated so that it is no longer available to bats, the bats excluded from the building as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 are expected to be able to find and use alternate roost sites, and the loss of such buildings would not result in a regional decline in bat populations. As a result, loss of bat roost habitat as a result of Plan activities would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Minimization of Impacts to Roosting Bats. x Conduct Pre-Activity Surveys for Roosting Bats. A pre-activity habitat assessment and survey for roosting bats shall be conducted prior to removal or renovation of buildings. The habitat assessment and survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If the biologist determines that a building provides no suitable bat roost sites, no actual bat survey would be necessary, but if suitable roost sites exist, a visual survey will be conducted during the daytime to determine whether bats are present.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1479
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
53 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
During this survey, the biologist will look for bats and evidence of their presence (e.g., guano or urine staining). If the visual survey cannot adequately determine whether bats are present, a dusk survey will be conducted during suitable weather conditions for bat activity to determine whether bats enter or exit the roost. If no active roosts are found, then no further action is warranted. If a roost is present, a qualified biologist shall determine the species and number of individuals present and implement further measures as described below.
x Avoid Disturbance of Active Roosts. If an occupied roost is found in a structure that would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the structure. If the roost is unoccupied at the time of the survey, the project proponent may have a qualified biologist install bat exclusion devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset of the proposed activity. If avoidance is not feasible, the following measures shall be implemented.
x Avoid Disturbance of Maternity Roosts. If an active maternity roost is present within the building to be demolished or disturbed and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied roost, disturbance shall not take place during the maternity season (as determined by the qualified biologist, but approximately April 1 to August 31), and an appropriate disturbance-free buffer zone (also determined by the qualified biologist) shall be observed during this period to avoid disturbing the roosting bats. Following the maternity season, bats can be excluded as described below. x Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active non-breeding roost cannot be avoided, the individuals shall be safely evicted outside the maternity season (as determined by the qualified biologist) between approximately September 1 and April 1. Exclusion methods may include the installation of one-way doors, use of ultrasonic deterrence devices, changing air flow and temperature regimes in the roost space, or other methods that would not trap bats or involve handling bats. One-way doors and/or deterrence devices should be left in place for a minimum of two weeks with a minimum of five fair-weather nights with no rainfall and temperatures no colder than 50°F.

6.1.7 Impacts on Nonbreeding Special-Status Birds (Less than Significant) Several special-status bird species may occur in the Plan area as nonbreeding migrants, transients, or foragers, but they are not known or expected to breed or occur in large numbers within or near the Plan area. These are the Vaux’s swift, Alameda song sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, tricolored blackbird, and yellow warbler.

The Vaux’s swift is an aerial forager that would not roost or nest in the Plan area. The other four species may forage in the Plan area, though due to limited availability and low quality of foraging habitat, the Alameda song sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, and tricolored blackbird would occur only in low numbers and/or irregularly. Yellow warblers may be common, foraging in ornamental vegetation, during migration.

Activities under the Plan would have some potential to impact foraging habitats and/or individuals of these species. Construction activities might result in a temporary direct impact through the alteration of foraging patterns (e.g., avoidance of work sites because of increased noise and activity levels during maintenance activities) but would not result in the loss of individuals, as individuals of these species would fly away from

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1480
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
54 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
any construction areas or equipment before individuals could be injured or killed. Further, the Plan area does not provide important foraging habitat used regularly or by large numbers of individuals of any of these species.

As a result, impacts under Plan activities will have little impact on these species’ foraging habitat and no substantive impact on regional populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

6.1.8 Impacts on Wildlife from Artificial Lighting (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Many animals are sensitive to light cues, which influence their physiology and shape their behaviors (Ringer 1972, de Molenaar et al. 2006). Artificial light has been used as a means of manipulating breeding behavior and productivity in captive birds for decades (de Molenaar et al. 2006), and has been shown to influence the territorial singing behavior of wild birds (Longcore and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006). While it is difficult to extrapolate results of experiments on captive birds to wild populations, it is known that photoperiod (the relative amount of light and dark in a 24-hour period) is an essential cue triggering physiological processes as diverse as growth, metabolism, development, breeding behavior, and molting (de Molenaar et al. 2006). This holds true for birds, mammals (Beier 2006), and other taxa as well, suggesting that increases in ambient light may interfere with these processes across a wide range of species, resulting in impacts on wildlife populations.

Artificial lighting may indirectly impact mammals and birds by increasing the nocturnal activity of predators such as owls, hawks, and mammalian predators (Negro et al 2000, Longcore and Rich 2004, DeCandido and Allen 2006, Beier 2006). The presence of artificial light may also influence habitat use by rodents (Beier 2006) and by breeding birds (Rogers et al. 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006) by causing avoidance of well-lit areas, resulting in a net loss of habitat availability and quality. Excessive lighting can also alter the behavior of migrating birds. Vertical beams can disorient birds flying at lower altitudes. Birds that encounter beams from up-lights are likely to respond to the lights, and may become disoriented or attracted to the lights to the point that they collide with buildings or other nearby structures.

Light of different wavelengths can have various effects on animal communities. Peer-reviewed scientific studies provide conflicting results with respect to the effects of lighting temperatures and/or wavelengths on various species of plants and animals. For example, studies have found that using blue and green lights may be less disorienting to birds compared to red lights (Poot et al. 2008). In addition, warmer-temperature, broadspectrum Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) that emit more long-wavelength light than short-wavelength light (i.e., 3,000 K compared to 5,000 K) have less pronounced effects on behaviors of certain bird species (Alaasam et al. 2018). However, birds can also be disoriented by both red lights (Sheppard 2022) and blue lights (Zhao et al. 2020), indicating that there is variation between species. A review of the effects of LEDs on terrestrial wildlife for the California Department of Transportation (Longcore 2023) concluded that many species are less sensitive to longer wavelengths/higher-temperature LEDs, but responses vary among species and taxonomic groups, and the diversity of responses of terrestrial wildlife species to lighting temperatures is too large to provide a single recommendation for an ideal lighting spectral composition. Nevertheless, the International Dark-Sky Association, the American Bird Conservancy, and other organizations currently recommend using

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1481
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
55 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
lighting with a color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin and lower, or ideally 2,700 Kelvin and lower, because cooler/bluer light (defined as 3,000 Kelvin and greater) has a stronger negative effect on plants and animals compared to warmer/redder lights (defined as 2,700 Kelvin and lower).

Currently, considerable artificial lighting of a variety of wavelengths exists in the Plan area and surrounding areas. Simply replacing existing lighting with new lighting of similar intensity, wavelength, and directionality would not result in a substantial impact on wildlife relative to baseline conditions. However, increasing the amount of lighting in the Plan area, the amount of lighting pointed toward the sky, and the amount of lighting with color temperature greater than 2,700 Kelvin could impact wildlife by changing their behavioral patterns, disorienting animals, altering predator-prey dynamics, and affecting other important biological processes and relationships. Such impacts would be particularly detrimental along Belmont Creek and other drainages that support native wildlife, and for migratory birds that may become disoriented (potentially increasing the frequency of bird collisions, as discussed in Section 6.4.2) by up-lighting. Such impacts would be significant; implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts from lighting on wildlife to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Lighting Impact Reduction. The following measures will be implemented during any renovation or redevelopment under the Specific Plan that involves new outdoor lighting or replacement of existing lighting with fixtures or luminaires that are not identical in intensity, wavelength, and directionality to those being replaced.
x Through a combination of proper fixture selection, low mounting height, glare shielding, and orientation/aiming of light fixtures, the design team shall actively control undesirable spill of light toward sensitive habitat areas, including Belmont Creek, other drainage channels and associated wetland and riparian habitat, or vegetated open space areas. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded to block illumination from shining outward toward such sensitive habitat areas and to prevent the lit portions of these fixtures (i.e., the lamps) from being directed toward the sensitive habitat areas. x Outdoor lighting fixtures shall incorporate lamps with a Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 Kelvin or less.
x Up-lighting shall be avoided, all fixtures shall have a backlight, uplight, and glare (BUG) up-light rating of U0, and the maximum vertical illuminance at any point in the plane of the property line will be 0.05 footcandle, unless the following conditions are met:
o All up-light is directed at building facades such that no light spills upwards past a structure (e.g., into the sky) or outwards into adjacent areas.
o The fixture is programmed to switch off between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise.

6.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1482
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
56 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less Than Significant)
The CDFW defines sensitive natural communities and vegetation alliances using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology (CDFW 2019), as described above in Section 4.3. Furthermore, aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats are also protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS.

Project impacts on sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, were considered and evaluated.

Plan activities will not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek or any other wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats. As described in Section 6.1.2, Plan activities will implement measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality during and following construction of projects under the Plan. Further, the Specific Plan will require treatment of stormwater runoff, increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions will improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions and will enhance the quality of riparian corridors. As a result, potential indirect impacts of Plan activities on sensitive habitats would be less than significant.

6.3 Impacts on Wetlands: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (Less Than Significant)
Plan activities will not result in direct impacts to Belmont Creek or any other wetland or aquatic habitats. As described in Section 6.1.2, Plan activities will implement measures to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality during and following construction of projects under the Plan. Further, the Specific Plan will require treatment of stormwater runoff, increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions will improve the quality of runoff from Plan areas, relative to existing conditions and will enhance the quality of wetland and aquatic habitats. As a result, potential indirect impacts of Plan activities on wetland and aquatic habitats would be less than significant.

6.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

6.4.1 Impacts on Wildlife Movement (Less than Significant) Wildlife movement within the Plan area is described in Section 4.3 above. Belmont Creek provides a movement corridor for fish and other aquatic species, as well as mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, the narrow nature of

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1483
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
57 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
the riparian corridor along this creek and intensively urban land uses along the creek limit wildlife movement along the creek to some extent. The unnamed channels in the Plan area also provide movement corridors for wildlife. However, because these channels connect to other aquatic habitat in the vicinity via underground pipes, they do not provide high-quality movement corridors for fish and other aquatic wildlife species. Due to the presence of development throughout and surrounding the Plan area, no other well-defined or important movement corridors are present within the Plan area. Wildlife species may move through the developed portions of the Plan area using cover and refugia as they find them available. However, most dispersal by wildlife species in the Plan area vicinity likely occurs within higher-quality habitats present in natural sloughs, marshes, and aquatic habitat areas located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the Plan area. Although migratory songbirds use the Plan area as well, no high-quality migratory stopover habitat, such as extensive riparian habitat, oak woodland, or well-vegetated parks, is present within the Plan area.

Proposed development under the Plan will not result in any loss or degradation of aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat along Belmont Creek or other existing drainages. Further, the Specific Plan will increase the creek setback from 25 feet to 35 feet for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, and require a natural vegetated buffer along drainage channels for redevelopment activities. These actions will broaden the corridors for wildlife movement along these waterbodies, which will enhance the potential for wildlife movement. Increases in open space and native vegetation as a result of the Plan will enhance habitat for migrant birds as well. For all these reasons, Plan impacts on wildlife movement would be less than significant.

The Plan would not cause substantial impacts to any important native wildlife nursery sites (i.e., an area where breeding is concentrated such as a heron rookery, pinniped pupping area, or seabird colony). Impacts on breeding animals, including breeding colonies of animals (e.g., bat maternity colonies), may occur as described in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.3, 6.1.5, and 6.1.6 above, but no breeding areas for the species addressed in those impacts are so large or regionally important that they rise to the level of an “important native wildlife nursery site”.

Therefore, no impacts on wildlife nursery sites will occur.

6.4.2 Impacts Due to Bird Collisions (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Under existing conditions, terrestrial land uses and habitat conditions on the project site and in surrounding areas in all directions consist primarily of developed areas such as buildings (primarily of one or two stories), parking lots, and roads. Vegetation throughout much of this area is sparse, with only a few non-native landscaped trees and shrubs, and does not draw in large number of birds to the area. However, the dense riparian habitat along Belmont Creek attracts birds to the area, with the other channels and associated riparian habitat supporting fewer birds due to their very narrow nature and the limited development of riparian vegetation.

The Specific Plan will result in enhancement of habitat along Belmont Creek and other channels, and in the Plan area in general, due to the increase in the riparian setback for redevelopment along Belmont Creek, the requirement for native revegetation in riparian areas, and increased open space requirements. Increases in vegetated open space, particularly where native vegetation is planted and particularly along streams, will make

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1484
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
58 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
the Plan area more attractive to birds, thus increasing the number of resident and migratory birds in the Plan area.

The extent to which new buildings and other structures to be constructed under the Specific Plan will incorporate glazing on their façades is unknown, as these structures have not yet been designed. It has been well documented that glass windows and building façades can result in injury or mortality of birds due to birds’ collisions with these surfaces (Klem 2009, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Because birds do not perceive glass as an obstruction the way humans do, they may collide with glass when the sky or vegetation is reflected in glass (e.g., they see the glass as sky or vegetated areas); when transparent windows allow birds to perceive an unobstructed flight route through the glass (such as at corners); and when the combination of transparent glass and interior vegetation (such as in planted atria) results in attempts by birds to fly through glass to reach that vegetation. The greatest risk of avian collisions with buildings occurs in the area within 40–60 feet of the ground, because this is the area in which most bird activity occurs (San Francisco Planning Department 2011, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Very tall buildings (e.g., buildings 500 feet or more high) may pose a threat to birds that are migrating through the area, particularly to nocturnal migrants that may not see the buildings or that may be attracted to lights on the buildings (San Francisco Planning Department 2011).

The extent of glazing on a building and the presence of vegetation opposite the glazing are known to be two of the strongest predictors of avian collision rates (Gelb and Delacretaz 2009, Borden et al. 2010, Cusa et al. 2015). Further, the greatest risk of avian collisions with glazed façades is in the area within 60 feet of the ground, because this is the area in which most bird activity occurs (San Francisco Planning Department 2011).

Therefore, we would expect collision risk with new or renovated buildings to be highest within approximately 60 feet of the ground where landscape vegetation occurs adjacent to or opposite extensive areas of glass.

If new or renovated buildings and other structures within the Plan area have extensive glass façades, birds are likely to collide with these façades, resulting in injury or death. Building collisions are a leading cause of anthropogenic-related avian mortality in the United States, second only to predation by free-ranging domestic cats (Loss et al. 2014). Buildings are estimated to result in the mortality of 365 to 988 million birds per year, or 2–9% of all North American birds, with low-rise buildings such as those most likely to be constructed under the Specific Plan accounting for the mortality of between 62 and 664 million birds per year (Loss et al. 2014).

Most birds that are vulnerable to collisions with low-rise buildings are migrants that move through during the spring and fall (Loss et al. 2014). However, certain groups of birds are also more vulnerable to collisions, including hummingbirds, swifts, waxwings, warblers, nuthatches, tits, and creepers (Loss et al. 2014).

Considering the size of the Plan area, the number of birds that could be injured or killed over time as a result of increases in façade glazing could be substantial. These collisions could potentially result in the mortality of large numbers of birds relative to the size of regional populations, and enough individuals of common bird species can potentially strike the buildings over the long term to result in a significant impact according to CEQA.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1485
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
59 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
The currently proposed revisions to the San Carlos General Plan include Action EM-1.5, which states: “Require that major new buildings and taller structures that extend above the existing surrounding urban fabric and height of the tree canopy be designed to minimize the potential risk of bird collisions using input from the latest bird-safe design guidelines and best management practice strategies to reduce bird strikes.” The Draft EIR for the General Plan Update (City of San Carlos 2025) describes a number of bird-safe design elements that should be implemented in accordance with Action EM-1.5. Redevelopment that occurs under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with Action EM-1.5. While those elements are generally appropriate, it is our opinion that the focus of EM-1.5 on taller structures that extend above surrounding buildings and trees does not appropriately focus bird-safe design measures on the areas where most collisions occur. Existing trees and buildings in the Plan area are mostly below 40 feet in height. The “bird collision zone”, which has the greatest risk of avian collisions with buildings, consists of areas within 40–60 feet of the ground, because this is the area in which most bird activity occurs (San Francisco Planning Department 2011, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Therefore, in our opinion, implementation of Action EM-1.5 alone would not adequately reduce birdcollision impacts of Specific Plan activities because it would focus on redevelopment that may be well above the bird collision zone. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 below would incorporate bird-safe design elements into project designs within the bird collision zone, reducing such impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Implement Bird-Safe Building Design. Due to the potential for buildings within the Plan area, particularly near sensitive habitats, to result in bird collisions, renovation and redevelopment under the Specific Plan will implement the following bird-safe building design considerations for all buildings within 300 feet2 of Belmont Creek or any contiguous open space areas (including other drainages), including existing open space and future open space created by the Plan, that are 2 acres or larger and that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats:
x The extent of glass on the façades of new buildings and additions shall be minimized to the extent feasible. x No more than 10% of the surface area of the façades of buildings (considering all facades combines) shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground. Bird-safe glazing treatments may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and/or physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or ultraviolet patterns visible to birds. Bird-safe glazing shall have the following specifications:
o Vertical elements of the window patterns will be at least ¼-inch wide at a maximum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8-inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches; OR o Bird-safe glazing shall have a Threat Factor3 less than or equal to 30.

2 The 300-foot distance and 2-acre thresholds for open space areas are based on guidance provided in the City of San Francisco’s Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings (San Francisco Planning Department 2011). 3 A material’s Threat Factor is assigned by the American Bird Conservancy, and refers to the level of danger posed to birds based on birds’ ability to perceive the material as an obstruction, as tested using a “tunnel” protocol (a standardized test that uses wild birds to determine the relative effectiveness of various products at deterring bird collisions). The higher the Threat Factor, the greater the risk that collisions will occur. An opaque material will have a Threat Factor of 0, and a completely transparent material will have a Threat Factor of 100. Threat Factors for many commercially available façade materials can be found at https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1486
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
60 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
x No more than 10% of the surface area of any façades directly facing Belmont Creek or any open space areas 2 acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats, and/or façade areas within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces, shall have untreated glazing. x All glazing panels at corners of façades that face Belmont Creek or any open space areas 2 acres or larger that are dominated by vegetation or wetland/aquatic habitats, between the ground and 60 feet above ground and/or within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces (regardless of their height above ground), will be 100% treated.
x To reduce reflections of clouds and vegetation in glass and help ensure that bird-safe treatments on the lower surfaces of glass are visible below any reflections, glazing shall have a visible reflectance of 15% or lower.
x Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners between the ground and 60 feet above ground and/or within 12 vertical feet above and/or below landscaped terraces (regardless of their height above ground) should not be allowed, unless the glazing is 100% treated. x Transparent glass should not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with green roofs, unless the glazing is 100% treated.
x A project may receive a waiver from one or more of the requirements above if a qualified biologist documents that glazing in a particular area will not increase bird collision risk or documents why alternative bird-safe design measures would be at least as effective as the above requirements. Any such waiver must be approved by the City.

6.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Less than Significant)

6.5.1 Impacts Due to the Removal of Ordinance-Sized Trees (Less than Significant) Implementation of the proposed project would likely result in the removal of ordinance-sized trees. All proponents for projects implemented under the Plan would apply for tree removal permits as necessary and comply with the conditions of those permits. As a result, impacts of Plan activities related to conflicts with the City’s tree ordinance would be less than significant.

6.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1487
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
61 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (No Impact) No habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the Plan or Plan area. Therefore, Plan implementation will have no impact related to this significance criterion.

6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. Future development activities in the City of San Carlos will result in impacts on the same habitat types and species that will be affected by activities under the Plan. Projects under the Plan, in combination with other projects in the area and other activities that impact the species and habitats that are affected by Plan activities, could contribute to cumulative effects on these biological resources. Other projects in the region include both development and maintenance projects that could adversely affect these biological resources and restoration projects that will benefit these biological resources.

The cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from development under the Plan in combination with other projects in the larger region would be dependent on the relative magnitude of adverse effects of these projects on biological resources compared to the relative benefit of impact avoidance and minimization efforts prescribed by planning documents, CEQA mitigation measures, and permit requirements for each project, and compensatory mitigation and proactive conservation measures associated with each project. In the absence of such avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation, and conservation measures, cumulatively significant impacts on biological resources would occur.

However, the proposed 2045 General Plan Reset and the San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan contain conservation measures that would benefit biological resources, as well as measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on these resources. As a result, the Plan will not contribute to substantial cumulative effects on biological resources.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1488
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
62 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Section 7. References
Alaasam, V. J., R. Duncan, S. Casagrande, S. Davies, A. Sidher, B. Seymoure, Y. Shen, Y. Zhang, J. Ouyang. 2018. Light at night disrupts nocturnal rest and elevates glucocorticoids at cool color temperatures. J Exp Zool A Ecol Integr Physiol. 2018 October ; 329(8-9): 465–472. doi:10.1002/jez.2168.

Becker, G. S., I. J. Reining, D. A. Asbury, and A. Gunther. 2007. San Francisco Estuary Watersheds Evaluation.

Identifying promising locations for steelhead restoration in tributaries of the San Francisco Esturary.

Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. 92 pp.

Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on mammals in Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Pp 19-42.

Borden, W.C., Lockhart, O.M., Jones, A.W. and Lyons, M.S., 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH.

Bumble Bee Watch. 2025. Bumble Bee Sightings Map. Accessed through February 2025 from https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/app/#/bees/map.

California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup. 2025. EcoAtlas. Accessed February 2025 from https://www.ecoatlas.org.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Report to the Fish and Game Commission.

Evaluation of the petition from the Xerces Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety to list four species of bumble bees as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.

April 4.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program:

Natural Communities List. Published July 5, 2022 at
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.

California Invasive Plant Council. 2025. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Accessed February 2025 from http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2025. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed February 2025
from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2025a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9.5).

Accessed February 2025 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1489
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
63 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2025b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Accessed February 2025 from http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/.

City of San Carlos. 2025. 2045 General Plan Reset Draft EIR for the City of San Carlos. SCH: 2024060037.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2025. eBird. http://www.ebird.org/. Accessed through February 2025.

Cusa, M., Jackson, D.A. and Mesure, M., 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems, 18(4): 1427–1446. de Molenaar, J.G., M.E. Sanders, and D.A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds: local influence of road lighting on a black-tailed godwit population in Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Pp 114-136.

DeCandido R. and D. Allen. 2006. Nocturnal hunting by peregrine falcons at the Empire State Building, New York City. Wilson J. Ornithol. 118(1): 53-58.

Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Nichols, L. Master, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L.

Ramsay, A. Teucher, and B. Young. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments:

Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Gelb, Y. and Delacretaz, N., 2009. Windows and vegetation: primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions.

Northeastern Naturalist, 16(3): 455–470.

Google LLC. 2025. Google Earth Pro (version 7.3.6.9345) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished report. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. iNaturalist. 2025. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations. Accessed February 2025.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2025. Jepson eFlora. Accessed February 2025 from https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.

Klem, D., Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb, and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(1):126-134.Sheppard, C. and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design, 2nd Ed. The Plains, VA: American Bird Conservancy, 2015.

Leidy, R. A. 1984. Distribution and Ecology of Stream Fishes in the San Francisco Bay Drainage (and associated unpublished data, 1981-1984). Hilgardia 52(8).

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1490
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
64 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey. 2005. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California.

Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration.

Leidy, R.A., 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary, California. SFEI Contribution# 530. Cal.: San Francisco Estuary Institute.

Longcore, T. 2023. Effects of LED Lighting on Terrestrial Wildlife. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation and Regents of the University of California. March 31, 2023.

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(4): 191-198.

Loss, S. R., R. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird-Building Collisions in the United States: Estimates of Annual Mortality and Species Vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116: 8-23.

Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. Condor 108(1):
130-139.

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2025. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed February 2025 from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

Negro, J. J., J. Bustamante, C. Melguizo, J. L. Ruiz, and J. M. Grande. 2000. Nocturnal activity of lesser kestrels under artificial lighting conditions in Seville, Spain. J. Raptor Res. 34(4): 327-329.

Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2022. California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2021. Prepared for the State Coastal Conservancy. January 31, 2022.

Peninsula-Birding List Serve (2025). https://groups.io/g/peninsula-birding . Accessed through February 2025.

Poot, H., Ens, B.J., de Vries, H., Donners, M.A., Wernand, M.R. and Marquenie, J.M., 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and society, 13(2). https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/.

PRISM Climate Group. 2025. Online PRISM Data Explorer. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Accessed February 2025 from: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.

Ringer, R. K. 1972. Effect of light and behavior on nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 35: 642-647.

Rogers, D. I., T. Piersma, and C. J. Hassell. 2006. Roost availability may constrain shorebird distribution:

Exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical bay. Biol. Conserv. 33(4):
25-235.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1491
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
Biological Resources Report
65 H. T. Harvey & Associates
May 12, 2025
Rottenborn, S. C. 2007. Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis. In W.G. Bousman, editor. Breeding bird atlas of Santa Clara County. p 408-409. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, CA.

San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. Planning Department. July 14, 2011.

Sequoia Audubon Society. 2001. San Mateo County Breeding Bird Atlas. Sequoia Audubon Society, Woodside, CA.

Shellhammer, H. S. 2000. Salt marsh wandering shrew, Sorex vagrans halicoetes. Pages 109-113 in P. R. Olofson, editor. Goals Project. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Key Plants, Fish and Wildlife. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California.

Shellhammer, H. 2005. Salt marsh harvest mouse database and maps. San Francisco Estuary Institute. Accessed through March 2015 from: http://www.sfei.org/content/salt-marsh-harvest-mouse-database-andmaps.

Sheppard, C. 2022. Misguiding Light: The Role Artificial Light Plays in Bird Mortality from Collisions with Glass. American Bird Conservancy, May 11, 2022.

Sheppard, C. and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design, 2nd Ed. The Plains, VA: American Bird Conservancy, 2015.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Final Rule. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, Volume 77 No. 118: 36728–36869. June 19, 2012.

Xerces Society. 2025. Western Monarch Overwintering Site Viewer. Accessed February 2025 from https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/map-of-overwintering-sites/.

Zhao, X., Zhang, M., Che, X. and Zou, F., 2020. Blue light attracts nocturnally migrating birds. The Condor, 122(2), p.duaa002.

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1492
TYPE OF SERVICES Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment LOCATION San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
San Carlos, California
CLIENT David J. Powers & Associates
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Oakland, California 94612
PROJECT NUMBER 118-146-1
DATE January 11, 2023

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1493
Type of Services Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment Location San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
San Carlos, California
Client David J. Powers & Associates
Client Address 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Oakland, California 94612
Project Number 118-146-1
Date January 11, 2023
Stason I. Foster, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer
Kurt M. Soenen, P.E.

Senior Principal Engineer
Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1259 Oakmead Parkway I Sunnyvale, CA 94085
T 4082454600 I F 4082454620
www.cornerstoneearth.com
1220 Oakland Boulevard, Su ite 220 I Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T 925 988 9500 I F 925 988 9501
■

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1494
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
San Carlos, California
118-146-1
Page i
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2: GEOTRACKER AND ENVIROSTOR DOCUMENT REVIEW ................................. 2 SECTION 3: HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ........................................................................ 5 SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS (FINDINGS) AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 6

4.1 SITE HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 REPORTED SPILL INCIDENTS ......................................................................................... 6

4.3 RECOMMENDED PROPERTY-SPECIFIC STUDIES AND PLANS .................................. 7

4.4 LEAD-BASED PAINT ......................................................................................................... 8

4.5 ASBESTOS AND OTHER HAZARDOUS BUILDING MATERIALS .................................. 8

4.6 FACILITY CLOSURES ....................................................................................................... 8

4.7 IMPORTED SOIL ................................................................................................................ 9

4.8 GROUNDWATER WELLS ................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 5: LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 1 – Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2 – Site Plan
APPENDIX A – HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND TOPO MAPS Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

10.b
June 08, 2026 Packet Pg. 1495
San Carlos Northeast Area Specific Plan
San Carlos, California
118-146-1