San Carlos unveils Northeast Area Specific Plan proposing mixed-use district, resilience upgrades and new housing

San Carlos city staff and consultants presented the public draft of the Northeast Area Specific Plan at the City Council study session on May 27, outlining a 20‑year framework to guide redevelopment of the city’s 145‑acre northeast district.

Rendel Bustos, the city’s senior planner, said the plan is intended “to guide intentional development and investment within the 145 acres of the Northeast area so that we’re aligned with the community goals and the city’s general plan.” The proposal preserves industrial and production uses while adding two mixed‑use residential designations (MU‑NE90 and MU‑NE75) in the southwestern corner nearest Caltrain.

The draft codifies zoning, development standards and performance standards across seven plan chapters — land use and urban form; mobility and parking; environmental resilience; and implementation among them — and pairs those rules with a community benefits framework. Mark Aznes, project manager for Perkins & Will, said the plan’s development forecast includes a high‑level projection of approximately 1,890 residential units, and allows a range of nonresidential floor‑area ratios, with targeted higher intensity and bonus entitlements in the northern parts of the district.

Why it matters: the northeast area sits between two Caltrain stations and the Harbor Industrial Area and has repeatedly flooded; staff emphasized that the plan leads with resilience, including raised first floors for new construction, creek setbacks and extensive green‑street stormwater measures. The consultants presented required open‑space dedications (10–15% of site area depending on parcel size), new private‑public spaces, and an expected new public park within the MU‑NE90 zoning area.

Public comment reflected both support and concern. Carolyn Shepard of Solutions for Supportive Homes urged the council to prioritize permanent supportive housing and to build incentives that help nonprofit developers secure predevelopment financing: “Our ask for permanent supportive housing … is for the inclusion of those with disabilities who need on‑site support,” she said. Leslie Wombach of NAMI San Mateo County described barriers to financing supportive housing and urged early incentives.

Industrial property owners and operators expressed concern that some rules — notably creek setbacks and restrictions on enlarging nonconforming uses — could restrict healthy operations or make redevelopment infeasible. Sean Williams, whose family operates Williams Business Park, said the 90‑units‑per‑acre and the 90‑foot residential height rules as drafted could block viable redevelopment and asked the city to explore alternative entitlements in exchange for housing. Todd Tral (representing a self‑storage operator) objected to strict limits on expanding legal nonconforming businesses and to a 35‑foot riparian setback along Belmont Creek, which he said sharply reduces developable land for some creek‑front properties.

What stays and what changes: The plan preserves permitted light‑ and industrial‑professional uses in most of the district, introduces a new Production & Innovation zoning district to encourage small‑scale industrial workshops and artisan manufacturing at ground level, and requires active ground‑floor uses at three named gateway intersections. It also ties bonus heights and additional FAR to community benefits, which consultants proposed offering either via an in‑lieu fee, a negotiated community benefits agreement, or a hybrid approach.

Council reaction and next steps: Council members used the study session to flag topics for follow‑up: the size and location of public open space (some called for a larger ‘statement’ park), the scope and timing of required green‑infrastructure improvements, potential for purple‑pipe recycled water, parking and transportation‑demand management requirements, and protections for existing industrial operators and nonconforming uses.

Staff said the next steps include refinements to the draft, continued coordination with property owners, completion of the required environmental review (the draft EIR is in progress for related matters) and anticipated future public hearings as the plan moves toward adoption. The city stressed that this study session was informational: no adoption votes were taken on the plan itself at this meeting.

Ending: Staff asked the council and community to submit written comments and signaled that the next formal milestones will be release of the environmental analysis and return hearings for specific plan adoption.