Development is on pause in San Carlos’ northeast

The city has not developed planning guidance for the area but prohibited nonindustrial uses in its 2030 General Plan, a guiding document prepared in 2009 that includes an environmental study for future development.

The pause is intended to help the city get ahead of an anticipated influx of new development coming to the area by allowing community members to help shape what amenities are built, such as new housing, public open space and other community benefits. To do so, the city has invested $1.5 million into a Northeast Area Specific Plan which will gather feedback from residents, business and property owners and other stakeholders in the area and include an updated environmental study.

“I think timing is everything and we have a brief moment here to see clearly the pressure of development coming to this area,” Mayor Sara McDowell said. “I do think it’s time for a timeout on major development in the northeast area.”

Treasurer investigation

Staff is recommending the council extend the moratorium for about two years until that study is complete but community members and public officials have shared concerns about the moratorium including City Treasurer Inge Tiegel who is now under investigation for allegedly violating the San Carlos Elected Officials Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy.

According to documents included in Monday’s meeting agenda, Tiegel is accused of using her elected title while drumming up opposition to the moratorium and of also attempting to use her position to lobby the council, direct the city manager and influence staff.

In an email from her personal account to City Manager Jeff Maltbie that was included in the agenda, Tiegel asked if there was anything he or city staff could do to “convince the City Council that a moratorium on the East Side is a bad idea,” and questioned if there where any fiscal or financial repercussions to the moratorium that she could speak on during the meeting as city treasurer “to help oppose this item.”

Maltbie forwarded that email to City Attorney Greg Rubens who advised Maltbie to not respond. That email also contained a forwarded email from Tiegel with the subject line “HIA - Important Notice to All San Carlos Property Owners” and signed “3rd generation property owner and current San Carlos City Treasurer,” that informed email recipients of the potential moratorium and encouraged them to email their concerns to McDowell, Vice Mayor Adam Rak, Rubens, Maltbie and the Planning Department.

Tiegel, a former councilmember and co-chair of the annexation committee that helped broker the deal between the Harbor Industrial Association and the city, said in a phone interview that the only land she owns is her primary residence in the White Oaks neighborhood in the southern end of the city. A parcel of land in the Harbor Industrial Area has been in her family for years but Tiegel said she has no financial connections to the land, instead asserting the connection is purely “sentimental.”

Tiegel said she recognizes her mistake in identifying herself as a longtime HIA property owner and also said she likely overstepped in reaching out to Maltbie with plans for using learned information for influencing public policy. Tiegel said she fully plans to cooperate with the investigation, noting she’s already met with Mayor Sara McDowell, Maltbie and Rubens, and will work to reduce any perceived conflicts of interest moving forward.

“I have been committed to San Carlos and an active member of the community really for my entire life. I take the code of ethics documents and policy very seriously and realize it was an unfortunate incident,” Tiegel, who was elected as treasurer in 2020, said. “I regret sending the email. I regret putting the City Council and mayor in the position they’re now in, having called for an investigation, but I will do everything in my power to fully cooperate.”

Concerns

A concern raised in Tiegel’s email was around stated interests in investigating the potential for housing in the northeast area. The state has set a goal for the city to help facilitate the construction of 2,735 new homes by 2031, a substantial increase from its current missed goal of about 600 new homes.

Staff has identified other areas of the city that can accommodate new housing projects but staff still called out housing as a potential objective for the northeast area in a report to council. Another object would be to conduct environmental studies that would help the city better understand the types of toxins in the area that currently prevent nonindustrial or sensitive uses in the area.

Even without the study or any land use changes, however, staff anticipates the city is still on track to surpass the 3.4 million square feet of commercial, office and industrial space studied in the General Plan for the entire city if the influx of development enters the northeast area as staff suspects.

Community Development Director Al Savay noted the ordinance as drafted is intended to prevent property owners from making investments that would lead to a long-term commitment to a use before the city can finish its assessment.

The ordinance, as written, does not apply to an 18-acre parcel owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, which has a development agreement with the city to build a hospital within the next 10 years, precluding officials from hindering its efforts. A proposed 401,072-square-foot research and development project at 642 Quarry Road is also exempt.

Potential revisions

Heeding the concerns shared during public comment, the council agreed to revisit the issue before the initial moratorium expires on June 9, allowing staff to review any potential revisions that can be made to the ordinance to allow property owners to make small changes to their properties.

Councilmember Ron Collins, who noted he’s always been a strong proponent of development, said it was “interesting” to see community opposition to the moratorium given that feedback has historically been on the side of less development. Ultimately, he and his fellow councilmembers agreed the move was in the best interest of the city.

“This is an opportunity to kind of push the pause button and kind of slow it down,” Collins said. “To me this is really the best time to do some long-term planning and bring some balance to our community and focus on creating more value to the quality of life.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106