Belmont City Council
July 12, 2022

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL AND BELMONT FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF

DIRECTORS
www.belmont.gov

1. ROLL CALL

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California

TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
Some Members may Participate Virtually
Being held under Gov. Code 54953(e) and
Belmont City Council Resolution 2022-052
The meeting will be broadcast live to Belmont residents on Comcast Cable Channel 27, streamed live via the City’s website at www.Belmont.gov. The public may also attend the meeting in the City Council Chambers and address the council from the chambers. Social distancing must be practiced, and seating will be limited.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

To maximize time for live public comment, we encourage members of the public to provide comments by joining the City Council meeting via Zoom : For web, visit https://belmont-gov.zoom.us/ select “Join” and enter Meeting ID: 95745673035. Use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak. You may rename your profile if you wish to remain anonymous.

For dial- in comments, call *67 1-(669) 900-6833 (your phone number will appear on the live broadcast if *67 is not dialed prior to the phone number), enter Meeting ID: 95745673035, and press *9 to request to speak. All public comments are subject to a 3-minute time limit unless otherwise determined by the Mayor.

If you wish to submit written public comment, you may send an email to [email protected] before the council considers the item. Please indicate the agenda item topic or agenda item number you wish to comment on in your email’s subject line. Any public comment regarding agenda items that are received from the publication of the agenda through the meeting date will be made part of the meeting record, but will not be read during the Council meeting.
1 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor to Administer Attorney's Oath to Belmont Resident Gabrielle Sue B. Fire Prevention Update
C. Parks Make Life Better

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

6. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

7. CONSENT BUSINESS
A. Virtual Meetings In July
B. Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project - Notice of Completion

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) and Basemap Amendments – Commercial Cannabis Overlay Zones - APPLICATION NO. 2022-0018.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Body on any City matter not on the agenda. The period for public comment at this point in the agenda is limited to 15 minutes, with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker. Speakers who requested but did not receive an opportunity to speak during this comment period will be given an opportunity to address the Body later in the meeting. State law prohibits the Body from acting on non-agenda items.

Consent business items are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member or staf request specific items to be removed for separate action.

The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution finding that the COVID-19 statewide emergency remains in effect and that state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing and directing the Council’s Citizen Advisory Bodies to make consistent findings
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution accepting work and authorizing the issuance of a Notice of Completion to EPS, Inc., dba Express Plumbing for the Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2019-574, for a final construction cost of 3,137,595.09.

Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: 1) Conduct Public Hearing.
2) Review Planning Commission recommendations.
3) Discuss and provide direction regarding an Ordinance establishing Cannabis Retail & Distribution
(S-3 & S-4) Overlay Zones, Zoning Basemap Amendments, and Development Standards 2 9. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Review and Adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan

10. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

11. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

12. ADJOURNMENT
Attachment(s):

Staff Report Cannabis ZTA
Resolution Cannabis
Cannabis Land Use Ordinance
Zoning Overlay Map
Overlay Zone Areas of Reconsideration
Consistency Analysis
Addendum & Exhibits
General Business items are considered separately, typically in the order listed. The chair will call for public comment on each item when the body considers the item.

Recommendation: Review and adopt a motion to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Exhibits A-C
Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments Verbal report from City Manager
Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staf only. However, Council/Board may take final action on an item if there is no need for additional staf analysis.

If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413. The speech and hearing-impaired may call (650) 637-2999 for TDD services. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Meeting information can also be accessed via the internet at:www.belmont.gov. All staff reports will be posted to the web in advance of the meeting, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council/District Board or Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting. 3

Virtual Meetings July - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 12, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Scott Rennie, City Attorney
Agenda Title: Virtual Meetings in July
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution finding that the COVID-19 statewide emergency remains in effect and that state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing and directing the Council’s Citizen Advisory Bodies to make consistent findings.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently issued a series of Executive Orders (N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-08-21) that effectively suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act governing the use of teleconferencing by local legislative bodies and allowed them to hold fully virtual meetings. The Brown Act was subsequently amendment by enactment of AB 361 in 2021 to include new requirements for holding fully virtual meetings during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor.

The Brown Act, in Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), typical requires a city legislative body that this uses teleconferencing to: (1) post agendas at all teleconference locations from which members will participate, (2) identify each location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, (3) make teleconference location accessible to the public and (4) maintain at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body in locations within the boundaries of the city. Under Government Code Section 54953(e) as amended by AB 361, fully virtual meetings are allowed without complying with these requirements during a proclaimed state of emergency if either:

1. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or,

2. The legislative body determines by majority vote that as a result of the emergency meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

After the initial teleconferenced meeting the legislative body must reconsider the state of emergency and determine whether either of the above circumstances continue every 30 days in order to continue to teleconference without complying with the requirements in section 54953(b)(3) listed above.

The City Council found both circumstances listed both existed and began holding fully virtual public 4

Virtual Meetings July - Staff Report
meetings on September 28, 2021. The Council reconsidered findings at least every 30 days between September 28, 2021 and March 8, 2022 and affirmed both findings. On April 26, 2022, the Council found that state and local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

The current San Mateo County Health Officer order related to COVID-19 issued on February 16, 2022, remains in effect and advises that individuals should continue to follow guidance released by the United States Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) including their sub-agency United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), and California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”).

On February 25, 2022, Governor Newsom lifted many of his previous emergency order’s related to COVID-19 and left in place critical measures that support the state’s ongoing response and recovery efforts. By mid-March 2022, transmission and hospitalize rates were low and stable and the circumstances appeared appropriate to transition back to in-person meetings. However, since then transmission and case rates have been steadily rising.

On April 13, 2022, California Public Health Officer Dr. Tomás J. Aragón issued a statement noting that the rising transmissions “underscores the need for Californians to remain vigilant and protect themselves and their communities by getting vaccinated and boosted.” At this time, a vaccine has not been approved for children under 5 years.

On May 6, 2022, the chief of San Mateo County Health, Louise Rogers issued a statement encouraging the public “to take the important actions we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones” in response to increasing COVID-19 transmission in the community and rising COVID-19 hospitalizations. On May 23, 2022, the chief issued a statement noting that community transmission was high and raising and urging people to take protective safety projections against the continued increase in COVID-19 case transmission test positivity and hospitalization.

As of June 30, 2022, the CDC assessed the COVID-19 community level in San Mateo County as “high”.

The CDC continues to recommend that individuals who are not up to date on COVID-19 vaccinations stay six feet apart from other people in indoor public places. The CDC also continues to advise that physical distancing along with other risk-reduction measures help reduce the chances of spreading COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus.

The current emergency COVID-19 regulations of the California Department of Industrial Relations Division Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) require employers to inform employees that strategies to decease the spread of COVID-19 are most effective when used in combination including physical distancing. (California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 3205). COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards
Analysis
Transmission rates of COVID-19 have increased, and the risk of COVID-19 variants are still unknown.

COVID-19 remains a significant public health hazard, particularly for unvaccinated individuals and continues to spread and impact nearly all parts of city operations. 5

Virtual Meetings July - Staff Report
Reducing the circumstances under which people come into close contact remains an important component of Belmont’s COVID-19 response strategy. However, the open nature of public meetings makes it is difficult to enforce compliance with vaccination, physical distancing, masking, cough and sneeze etiquette, or other safety measures. Meetings of the city’s legislative bodies incur indoors for sustained periods of time which increases the risk to members of the legislative bodies and attending members of the public to Delta variant transmission and infection. In addition, the non-emergency teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act do not provide a safe alternative for legislative body members who may be at high risk of infection or are susceptible to more severe illness as a result of infection because those rules require that the public be allowed to attend at the teleconference location.

Staff concludes that the Council may reasonably find, based on the available public health information pertaining to COVID-19, that meeting in person by the city’s legislative bodies at this time would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. Staff also concludes that the Council may also reasonably find, as an independent basis for continuing virtual meetings, that the County Health Officer recommends individuals follow CDC guidance which continues to encourage physical distancing as risk reduction strategy, and that CalOSHA continues to promote physical distancing as a prevention strategy in the workplace. Council may therefore find that state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing in settings such as legislative body meetings.

Alternatives

1. Take no action (in which case in-person meetings will resume)

2. Consider other findings
Attachments
A. Draft resolution
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
6

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT RECONSIDERING THE COVID-19 STATEWIDE EMERGENCY AS OF JULY 12, 2022, FINDING THAT STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS CONTINUE TO

RECOMMEND MEASURES TO PROMOTE SOCIAL DISTANCING, AND
DIRECTING THE COUNCIL’S CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES TO MAKE

CONSISTENT FINDINGS
WHEREAS, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, and the state of emergency remains in effect; and, WHEREAS, the City Council made findings under Government Code Section 54953(e) and began holding fully virtual public meetings on September 28, 2021, and reconsidered those findings at least every 30 days between September 28, 2021 and March 8, 2022; and, WHEREAS, the current San Mateo County Health Officer order related to COVID-19 issued on February 16, 2022, remains in effect and advises that individuals should continue to follow guidance released by the United States Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) including their sub-agency United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), and California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”); and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 2022, Governor Newsom lifted many of his previous emergency order’s related to COVID-19 and left in place critical measures that support the state’s ongoing response and recovery efforts; and,
WHEREAS, by mid-March 2022, transmission and hospitalize rates were low and stable and the circumstances appeared appropriate to transition back to in-person meetings, however, since then transmission and case rates have risen; and, WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, California Public Health Officer Dr. Tomás J. Aragón issued a statement noting that the rising transmissions “underscores the need for Californians to remain vigilant and protect themselves and their communities by getting vaccinated and boosted”; and,
WHEREAS, On May 23, 2022, the chief of San Mateo County Health, Louise Rogers issued a statement noting that community transmission was high and raising and urging people to take protective safety projections against the continued increase in COVID-19 case transmission test positivity and hospitalization; and,
WHEREAS, as of June 30, 2022, the CDC assessed the COVID-19 community level in San Mateo County as “high”, and the CDC continues to recommend that individuals who are not up to date on COVID-19 vaccinations stay six feet apart from other people in indoor public places, and continues to advise that physical distancing along with other risk-reduction measures help reduce the chances of spreading COVID-19; and, 7

WHEREAS, the current emergency COVID-19 regulations of the California Department of Industrial Relations Division Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) require employers to inform employees that strategies to decease the spread of COVID-19 are most effective when used in combination including physical distancing. (California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 3205).

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing.

SECTION 2. The subordinately legislative bodies of the city, including the commissions and other citizen advisory bodies, are directed to make findings consistent with the findings herein unless the body finds new information which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence as of July 12, 2022 that would prevent a reasonable decisionmaker from making either of the findings in Section 1 or the Council directs otherwise. Any finding inconsistent with the findings in Section 1 is subject to review and vacation by the Council.

SECTION 3. The resolution is effective immediately.
* * *
ADOPTED July 12, 2022 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
8

Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project Notice of Completion - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 12, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Bozhena Palatnik, Public Works, (650) 595-7463, [email protected] Agenda Title: Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project - Notice of Completion Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution accepting work and authorizing the issuance of a Notice of Completion to EPS, Inc., dba Express Plumbing for the Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2019-574, for a final construction cost of 3,137,595.09.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project included rehabilitation and reconstruction of 1.7 miles of sewer pipes using open trench and trenchless methods of construction, sewer service lateral reconnection and extension, multiple point repairs, manhole construction and rehabilitation, and tree removal and replanting. The majority of the sewer pipes to be rehabilitated were located within easements that crossed over 280 properties. Approximately 72 of these properties had various access constraints and above ground obstructions over the existing sewer mains.

On January 22, 2019, the City Council approved the advertisement and award of the Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2019-574, for an amount not to exceed $3,750,000 with a ten percent construction contingency. The construction started on May 6, 2019. During construction there were multiple unforeseen conditions that were dealt with efficiently by City staff, Construction Manager, and the contractor. Ultimately, the project was completed below the approved budget.

Analysis
The project is now complete to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with the construction plans and specifications. The total cost of construction is $3,137,595.09, which is within the approved budget.

During construction, the contractor experienced unforeseen conditions in the field due to utility, and property related structural and landscape conflicts, which resulted in 17 change orders. The City is retaining 5% from Express Plumbing to ensure that all subcontractors and suppliers are paid. The procedure for releasing the retention is the City Council’s acceptance of the work with authorization to issue and record the Notice of Completion. If there are no claims filed within 35 days of recording the notice, final payment of the retained amount is made to the contractor. 9

Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project Notice of Completion - Staff Report Alternatives

1. Take no action.

2. Refer back to staff for more information.

Attachments
A. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:
$3,137,595.09 was expended from Basin Rehabilitation
Account 503-3-730-7073-9030. The unspent balance from the Basin Rehabilitation Account will be returned to the fund balance of the Sewer Collections Fund and available for future sanitary sewer projects.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 10

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

ACCEPTING THE WORK AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO EPS, INC., DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING FOR THE SANITARY

SEWER EASEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT, CITY CONTRACT NUMBER 2019-574
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, the City Council approved the project plans and specification and authorized advertising and awarding the Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2019-574, for an amount not to exceed $3,750,000 with a ten percent construction contingency; and,
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2019, staff conducted a successful bid opening with low bid received at $3,109,182; and,
WHEREAS, the total cost of construction is $3,137,595.09.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Accepts the work as completed.

SECTION 2. Authorizes the City Clerk to issue the Notice of Completion to Express Plumbing, Inc.

SECTION 3. Authorizes the City Clerk to file Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Clerk-Record’s office for the Sanitary Sewer Easement Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2019-574.
* * *
ADOPTED July 12, 2022 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
11

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
12

Commercial Cannabis ZTA - Staff Report - 7-12-22

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 12, 2022
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, [email protected] Agenda Title: Commercial Cannabis Overlay Zone Amendments Agenda Action: Ordinance
Recommendation
1) Conduct Public Hearing.
2) Review Planning Commission recommendations.
3) Discuss and provide direction regarding an Ordinance establishing Cannabis Retail & Distribution (S-3 & S-4) Overlay Zones, Zoning Basemap Amendments, and Development Standards.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
In December 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2017-1128 (Municipal Code Chapter 15, article IX) which prohibited all commercial cannabis activities from operating within the City of Belmont.

Personal use and cultivation of cannabis products were allowed in compliance with applicable State Law at that time (passage of Proposition 64 in November 2016), and subject to several local requirements aimed at protecting residential land uses (i.e. odor control and compliance with building, fire, and electrical codes). The City subsequently took a measured approach and did not consider commercial cannabis as a potentially permitted land use for a few years to allow for evaluation of other jurisdiction experiences (i.e. lessons learned and practical application).

At the City Council’s strategic planning workshop held in January 2021, the Council considered several different options for diversifying City revenues as part of a strategy aimed at promoting fiscal sustainability. One of the potential new revenue sources identified during that discussion was the legalization and local regulation of commercial cannabis activities. The Council subsequently authorized staff to conduct preliminary assessment of policy options available to the City for consideration at future study sessions.

At its April 13, 2021, November 9, 2021, and March 22, 2022 Study Sessions, the City Council provided feedback to staff regarding establishing cannabis businesses (commercial retail & distribution) within certain areas of Belmont.

At their April 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council: 1) conducted a public hearing, and 2) introduced a Draft Ordinance which embodies a number of necessary Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Amendments to implement the development standards applicable within the proposed Cannabis Overlay Districts, and the 13

Commercial Cannabis ZTA - Staff Report - 7-12-22
corresponding Zoning Basemap Designation Amendments to establish the overlay location areas where Cannabis Retail & Distribution – S-3; and Distribution Only – S-4 would be permitted.

At their June 7, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the Draft Ordinance regarding the BZO Amendments to implement the development standards applicable within the proposed Cannabis Overlay Districts and the corresponding Zoning Basemap Amendments for the proposed S-3 & S-4 Overlay Districts.

Significant public testimony was heard during the 6/7/22 Commission meeting (50+ speakers either inperson or through virtual participation). A majority of the speakers voiced concerns with the proposed amendments and urged that the City abandon the proposal, or at a minimum, reconsider the boundaries of the proposed overlay districts. The Commission discussed the matter in detail, and offered the following recommendations (in order of highest to lowest preference):

1. Reconsider the proposed S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Combining District boundary for all proposed properties fronting along Ralston Avenue (both sides of street). Highest preference of overlay zone modification of the three main recommendations.

2. Reconsider the S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Combining District and S-4 Cannabis Distribution Combining District boundaries from Masonic Way to the northern border (of San Mateo). Middle preference of overlay zone modification of the three main recommendations.

3. Reconsider the S-3 District boundary along both the west and east side Old County Road properties from the Ralston Avenue intersection to the southern border (of San Carlos). Lowest preference of overlay zone modification of the three main recommendations.

A majority of the Commission was comfortable recommending maintaining the proposed S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Combining District for the proposed properties along El Camino Real (ECR) - both east & west side fronting properties. The Commission was unanimous in recommending that the S-4 Cannabis Distribution Combining District be maintained for all properties along Shoreway Road. At the conclusion of Commission discussion on the matter, the Commission recommended Council approval of the overlay zone amendments, consistent with the above-described direction.

Analysis/Discussion
To restate the proposal, the subject Zoning Text/Basemap Amendments center on the following modifications:

1. Establishing the S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Combining District; this overlay zone is located primarily along El Camino Real (ECR) - both east & west side fronting properties - with the exception of properties located in the Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) area with ECR frontage. The S-3 District also extends along a portion of Ralston Avenue east of the Caltrain station to Granada Street, along a portion of west side Old County Road (OCR) from Masonic Way to the 700 Block of OCR, and along a portion of both east and west side Old County Road from Ralston Avenue (going south) to the southern border (of San Carlos) – see Attachment 2 and Exhibit 1 to Ordinance.
14

Commercial Cannabis ZTA - Staff Report - 7-12-22

2. Establishing the S-4 Cannabis Distribution Combining District; this overlay zone is exclusively located along the west side of Old County Road (OCR) from the 700 Block to the northern border (of San Mateo), and includes all properties along Shoreway Road - see Attachment 2 and Exhibit 1 to Ordinance.

3. Modifications to Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 3 to list the two new combining districts; Section 9 to define Cannabis Retail & Distribution as permitted uses in the subject overlay combining districts; and Section 10 (Planning Procedures) regarding Zoning Administrator (ZA) review authority of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed uses.

4. Modifications to Section 21 (Combining Districts) to add the specific S-3 and S-4 Overlay Zones and the pertinent zoning standards:
• Cannabis Retail & Distribution Definitions
• Zoning Administrator Review Authority
• Use Permit Requirements
• Development Regulations
• Performance Standards
• Reference to the Zoning Basemap for the location of the S-3 & S-4 Overlay Districts

5. The proposed Cannabis Use Development Regulations include the following:
(1) The use may only be established and operate inside a completely enclosed building. (2) The location of a Cannabis Retail use when initially established must comply with the following:
(A) The use must be at least 600 feet from a school or other Cannabis Retail use and at least 100 feet from parks and actively operated child day care centers. (B) The distances in subparagraph (A) are measured from the building containing the Cannabis Retail use by the length of the shortest path of travel over which the general public has a right to travel to the boundary of a property containing the incompatible use. (C) The public entrance to the Cannabis Retail use may not be located immediately adjacent to a youth-oriented business on the same frontage as the entrance. (3) The site and building must be suitably designed to be secure.

6. The proposed Cannabis Use Performance Standards include the following:
(1) State Licensing. The use must fully comply with all applicable operational rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity in Business & Professions Code Division

10. (2) Hours of Operation. A use may be open and operate only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
15

Commercial Cannabis ZTA - Staff Report - 7-12-22
(3) Consumption. Consumption of cannabis on the premise must not be allowed. (4) Smoking. Smoking or vaping of any kind on premises must not be allowed. (5) Odor. Cannabis odor must not be detectible outside the building from any place accessible to the public or from adjoining private property
(6) Public services. Operation of the business must not place a burden on the provision of public services disproportionate to other retail uses.
(7) Exterior Security Lighting. Adequate external lighting must be provided for security purposes.

The lighting shall be sufficient to provide illumination and clear visibility to all outdoor areas, with minimal spillover on adjacent properties. The lighting must be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and compatible with the neighborhood. (8) Security. On-site security must be provided for Cannabis Retail uses during the hours of operation when clients are present.

In concert with Council direction at their April 12, 2022 meeting, a maximum of up to three (3) commercial retail cannabis use permits are allowed, and a maximum of four (4) cannabis distribution use permits are allowed, as lawfully permitted via the Cannabis Regulatory Ordinance, and Zoning Administrator Use Permit review process.

Retail cannabis uses have the potential to bring additional people to downtown/commercial and mixeduse areas during both the daytime and early evening hours. Cannabis distribution uses would be compatible with other permitted warehouse and distribution uses. As noted earlier, establishment of these new uses would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to address potential light, glare, noise, traffic, and parking issues, and to ensure that these projects conform to specific development standards related to total number of permitted dispensaries, distance between dispensaries from schools, parks, and daycare facilities, hours of operation, customer management, and odor.

The CUP process would also include Police Department (PD) review and approval of operational/safety plans and state licensing to ensure that these uses operate in accordance with all applicable laws (i.e., use of products on site or in public places would be prohibited, security personnel would be required to prevent sales to minors and loitering, cannabis products and graphics representing cannabis products may not be visible from the exterior of the facility, and products must be stored and sold from inside a completely enclosed building). Design Review would also be required for any new building or exterior building alteration to ensure projects are consistent with established requirements for building design, signage, and landscaping.

Environmental Assessment - The proposed Cannabis Retail/Distribution Ordinance and corresponding Zoning Basemap Overlay Zone amendments are subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). In conjunction with review/recommendation of the subject amendments, staff has prepared an Addendum to the City’s 2017 General Plan/Belmont Village Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to serve as the environmental assessment for the proposed text/zoning district amendments.
16

Commercial Cannabis ZTA - Staff Report - 7-12-22
The proposed uses (Cannabis Retail & Distribution) are not dissimilar to other commercial retail/operational uses currently permitted within the proposed overlay zones. The proposed amendments would occur in an area where all public services and facilities are available to the subject overlay district(s) properties for development permissible in the General Plan. The subject overlay district(s) properties are not located in environmentally sensitive areas; the subject overlay district areas are generally already developed with existing commercial uses/structures. No development is proposed in conjunction with the recommended Zoning Text/Basemap Amendments. An individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution operator would be subject to CEQA clearance for the subject property intended for operation.

Next Steps

1. City Council consideration of Zoning Ordinance/Basemap Amendments to Create the Commercial Cannabis Combining Districts (Zoning Overlay) – 2
nd Reading of Ordinance pending Council
direction at the 7/12/22 Public Hearing.

2. Council consideration of Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Ordinance:
a. General Administration
b. Legal Authority
c. Operating Requirements and,
d. Enforcement

3. Public Hearing to Adopt Fee Schedule.

4. Staff develops all applications materials & website etc.

Attachments

1. Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council adoption of Ordinance

2. Draft Ordinance & Zoning Overlay Basemap Amendments & Exhibit 1 to Ordinance

3. Cannabis Zoning Overlay Map (Proposed)

4. Planning Commission Recommended Overlay District Reconsideration Map

5. General Plan Consistency Analysis

6. EIR Addendum & Exhibits
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Consultant funding and staff resources to explore local regulation of commercial cannabis activities have been incorporated in the current fiscal year’s budget in the General Fund.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda & Public Hearing Notice mailout to all properties
within 300-foot radius of proposed
overlay districts (900+ properties).
17 18
19

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING CANNABIS
REGULATIONS IN THE BELMONT ZONING ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 360)

AND ADOPTING CANNABIS RETAIL AND DISTRIBUTION COMBINING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
The council finds that allowing a limited number of cannabis businesses within certain prescribed areas of the city where commercial uses are currently allowed, including within the Belmont Village Specific Plan Area, is consistent with the General Plan and the Belmont Specific Plan and with the best interests of the city.

SECTION 2. BZO § 3.1 AMENDED
Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 360) is amended by modifying Section 3.1 as follows:

3.1 CLASSES OF DISTRICTS - For the purpose of this Ordinance, the City is divided into the following classes of districts as shown on the maps hereinafter included by reference:

Single Family Residential, or R-1E, R-1H, R-1A, R-1B and R-1C Districts Duplex Residential, or R-2 Districts Multi-family Residential, or R-3, R-4 and R-5 Districts Hillside Residential and Open Space, or HRO-1, HRO-2, and HRO-3 Districts Neighborhood Commercial, or C-1 Districts
General Commercial, or C-2 Districts
Regional Commercial, or RC District
Service Commercial, or C-4 Districts
Mixed Use District, Corridor Mixed Use, or CMU District Executive Administrative, or E-1, E-2.1 and E-2.2 Districts Harbor Industrial Area, or HIA-1 and HIA-2 Districts
Limited Industrial, or M Districts
Exclusive Manufacturing, or M.E. Districts
Special Combining Districts:

Special Building Site Combining District S-1,
Emergency Shelter Combining District S-2,
Cannabis Retail and Distribution Combining District S-3, Cannabis Distribution Combining District S-4
Schools and Compatible Multiple Uses, or SC Districts
Open Space Public, or OS-P Districts
Public and Semi-Public, or PS District
Village Core, or VC District
Village Station Core, or VSC District
Village Corridor Mixed Use, or VCMU District
Village High Density Residential, or VHDR District
Public Facility, or PF District
Park/Plaza, or PP District
Active Use Frontage Overlay, or AUFO Overlay
SECTION 3. BZO § 9.10 AMENDED
20

Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 360) is amended by modifying Section 9.10 as follows:

9.10. CANNABIS BUSINESSES. The use of land for cannabis business activity, including any commercial cannabis activity requiring a license under Business and Professions Code Division 10, is prohibited in all zoning districts and specific plan areas except as provided in Section 9.10.1 and 9.10.2

9.10.1 Retail sale and distribution of cannabis may be allowed in the S-3 District as provided in Section 21.4.2.

9.10.2 Distribution of cannabis may be allowed in the S-4 District as provided in Section 21.4.3.

SECTION 4. BZO § 10.7.4 AMENDED
Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 360) is amended by modifying Section 10.7.4 as follows:

10.7.4 Zoning Administrator Review. The Zoning Administrator is the Reviewing Authority for a Use Permit:
(a) In any commercial or manufacturing district provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed use is similar in nature to the prior use of the property. (2) The proposed use does not substantially increase impacts of traffic, noise, odor, vibration, parking or other objectionable elements to a residential neighborhood. (3) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (4) No other Planning Commission entitlements are required. (b) As provided in elsewhere in this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. BZO § 21.1 AMENDED
Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 360) is amended by modifying Section 21.1 as follows:

21.1 SPECIAL COMBINING DISTRICTS – This section establishes certain classes of districts designated respectively by the symbols S, S1, S-2, S-3, or S-4 referred to herein as Special Combining Districts or S Districts. When a zoning district is combined with an S District, the regulations specified for the respective S District shall apply in that portion of the district combined with the S District. Zoning regulations contained in the underlying district that are not superseded or incompatible with the S District regulations shall continue to apply.

SECTION 6. BZO § 21.4 AMENDED
Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 360) is amended by adding Section 21.4 as follows:

21.4 CANNABIS COMBINING DISTRICTS. Cannabis Combining Districts establish locations where Cannabis Distribution and a limited number of Cannabis Retail uses are allowable and establish regulations for those uses.

21.4.1 Cannabis Uses
21

(a) Definitions. As used in Section 21.4:
“Cannabis” and “Cannabis Products” have the meanings defined in Business & Professions Code Section 26001.
“Cannabis Retail” means a use involving the retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products to customers.
“Cannabis Distribution” means a use involving the procurement, sale, and transport of Cannabis or Cannabis Products between businesses for resale. “Child day care center” means a “day care center” for children as defined Health & Safety Code Section 1596.76.
“School” means an institution providing instruction for any grades pre-school through 12 whether public, private, or charter, including pre-school, transitional kindergarten, and K-12.
“Youth-oriented business” means any public or private facility that primarily provides services or hosts activities for minors, including, but not limited to: private youth membership organizations or clubs; tutoring; sports training; music, art, or dance lessons; and martial arts.
(b) Use Permit.
(1) When allowable, Cannabis Retail and Cannabis Distribution uses require a Use Permit. It is unlawful to establish or operate either a Cannabis Retail or a Cannabis Distribution use without a current and valid Use Permit that specifically authorizes the particular use.
(2) The Zoning Administrator is the Reviewing Authority for both Cannabis Retail and Cannabis Distribution Use Permit applications and, notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, any required Design Review entitlements under Section

13. (3) The Reviewing Authority may grant a Cannabis Use Permit only if it finds the proposed use is in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, applicable specific plans, this ordinance, and the Reviewing Authority determines it can make the findings in Section 10.7.3 and all of the following supplemental findings based on the application and information before the Reviewing Authority. The Reviewing Authority must deny the application if it determines one or more findings cannot be made. Sections 10.7.2 and 10.7.4 do not apply.
(A) The establishment of the proposed use complies with the applicable development regulations.
(B) For a Cannabis Retail Use Permit, there are fewer than three lawfully approved Cannabis Retail uses and approval of the use permit will not result in more than three Cannabis Retail uses in the S-3 District.
(C) For a Cannabis Distribution Use Permit, there are fewer than four lawfully approved Cannabis Distribution uses and approval of the use permit will not result in more than four Cannabis Distribution uses combined in the S-3 and S4 Districts. 22

(D) The use permit conditions require the use to comply with the performance standards in subsection (d) unless a modification is expressly approved by the permit.
(E) The Police Department has reviewed and approved security and operations plans for the use at the proposed facility.
(c) Development Regulations. Cannabis Retail and Cannabis Distribution uses must conform to all development regulations of the zoning district in which they are located unless a modification is expressly approved in the use permit and the following standards. (1) The use may only be established and operate inside a completely enclosed building. (2) The location of a Cannabis Retail use when initially established must comply with the following:
(A) The use must be at least 600 feet from a school or other Cannabis Retail use and at least 100 feet from parks and actively operated child day care centers. (B) The distances in subparagraph (A) are measured from the building containing the Cannabis Retail use by the length of the shortest path of travel over which the general public has a right to travel to the boundary of a property containing the incompatible use.
(C) The public entrance to the Cannabis Retail use may not be located immediately adjacent to a youth-oriented business on the same frontage as the entrance. (3) The site and building must be suitably designed to be secure. (d) Performance Standards. A Cannabis use must conform to the following performance standards unless a modification is expressly approved in the use permit. (1) State Licensing. The use must fully comply with all applicable operational rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity in Business & Professions Code Division 10.
(2) Hours of Operation. A use may be open and operate only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
(3) Consumption. Consumption of cannabis on the premise must not be allowed. (4) Smoking. Smoking or vaping of any kind on premises must not be allowed. (5) Odor. Cannabis odor must not be detectible outside the building from any place accessible to the public or from adjoining private property (6) Public services. Operation of the business must not place a burden on the provision of public services disproportionate to other retail uses. (7) Exterior Security Lighting. Adequate external lighting must be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be sufficient to provide illumination and clear visibility to all outdoor areas, with minimal spillover on adjacent properties. The lighting must be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and compatible with the neighborhood.
23

(8) Security. On-site security must be provided for Cannabis Retail uses during the hours of operation when clients are present.
(9) Commercial Cannabis Permit. The use must fully comply with all applicable local permit rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity, including operational permit requirements and conditions and approved operational plans under any other city ordinance or code.
(10) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the use permit and the requirements of a local operations permit issued by the police department, the more restrict performance requirements apply.

21.4.2 S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Combining District (a) S-3 District Established. The S-3 Cannabis Retail and Distribution Combining District comprises that certain area situated within the City of Belmont and described on the following map as an S-3 District. The City of Belmont Zoning Map is hereby amended to include the S-3 District as shown in Exhibit 1.
(b) Allowable Cannabis Uses and Limitations
(1) Both Cannabis Retail and Cannabis Distribution are allowable uses in the S-3 District with a use permit issued in accordance with section 21.4.1. (2) Only three Cannabis Retail uses are allowed within the S-3 District.

21.4.3 S-4 Cannabis Distribution Combining District
(a) S-4 District Established. The S-4 Cannabis Distribution Combining District comprises that certain area situated within the City of Belmont and described on the following map as an S-4 District. The City of Belmont Zoning Map is hereby amended to include the S4 District as shown in Exhibit 1. (b) Allowable Cannabis Uses and Limitations
(1) Cannabis Distribution is an allowable use in the S-4 District with a use permit issued in accordance with section 21.4.1.
(2) Retail Cannabis is not allowed.
(3) The number of Cannabis Distribution uses in the S-3 and S-4 Districts combined may not exceed a total of four.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Belmont hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
24

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 9. OPERATIVE DATE.

Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Ordinance are not operative, and the use of land for cannabis business activity shall remain prohibited, until the operative date of a commercial cannabis permit ordinance adopted by the city council establishing regulations for the operation of cannabis businesses and requiring a police permit for operation of cannabis businesses, or until such date as the council may hereafter prescribe by ordinance.
* * *
The City Council of the City of Belmont, California introduced the foregoing ordinance, on [insert date], 2022 and adopted the ordinance at a regular meeting held on [insert date], 2022 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
25 ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS:

Incorporated as Attachment No. 1
And Made a Part of Ordinance No. 2022-___
Zoning Basemap (Section) Amendment
PA2022-0018
E
Scale = 1:12,500 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Belmont Focus
Area
VC

VCMU SC
CMU
RC
CMU PP
PF
S-4
S-4
S-3 S-3
S-3
Cannabis Retail & Distribution Combining District (S-3) Cannabis Distribution Combining District (S-4) PP
VSC
PF
VHDR
VHDR
26 El Camino Real
Hiller Street
Old County Road
Alley
South Road
Shoreway Road
Middle Road
Fifth Avenue
Chesterton Avenue
Ralston Avenue
Holly Road
O'Neill Avenue
Civic Lane
North Road
Broadway
Oxford Way
Ruth Avenue
Anita Avenue
Wessex Way
Granada Street
Harbor Boulevard
Masonic Way
Molitor Road
Irwin Street
Davey Glen Road
Elmer Street
Hill Street
Kedith Street
Sem Lane
Island Parkway
Judson Street
Cambridge Street
Furlong Street
Clipper Drive
Seagate Way Roxbury Way
Vine Street
Yorkshire Way
Miramar Terrace Cornish Way
E Street
F Street
Emmett Street
Sixth Avenue
Virginia Avenue
King Street
Middlesex Way
Dale View Avenue
Prospect Street
Briarfield Way
Oxford Court
Hainline Drive
Vannier Drive
Cormorant Drive
Waltermire Street
Cypress Avenue
Anita Court
Julia Court
Alley
Proposed Overlay Zone Amendments
S-4 - Distribution only
S-3 - Retail & Distribution
27 El Camino Real
Ralston Avenue
Alley
Shoreway Road
Old County Road
Broadway
Hiller Street
South Road
Chesterton Avenue
Wessex Way
Granada Street
Middle Road
Mason ci Way
Irwin Street
Holly Road
Davey
Glen
Ro
ad
Clipper Drive
Kedith Street
Sem Lane
Island Parkway
O'Neill Avenue
Judson Street
Furlong Street
Oxford Way
Civic Lane Fifth Avenue
Ruth
Aven
ue
Roxbury Way
North
Road
Hill Street
Yorkshire Way
Elmer Street
Cambr di ge Street
Corn si h Way
F
Street
SIxth Avenue
Sixth Avenue
Virginia Avenue
King Street
Middlesex Way
D
ale
View
Avenue
Briarfield
Wa
y
Treasure island
Oxford Court
Seagate Way
C
orm
orant Drive
Anita Court
Julia Court
Fifth Avenue
Alley
Proposed Overlay Zone Amendments
Planning Commission: Areas of Reconsideration
Ralston Avenue Fronting Properties
North Old County Road Fronting Properties
South Old County Road Fronting Properties
S-4, Distribution only
S-3, Retail and Distribution
1 2
3 2
1 3
28 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
1 | P a g e
General Plan Consistency - Determination
In determining General Plan consistency for the Cannabis Regulations Project, applicable goals and policies of the Belmont General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) must be considered in light of the proposal. A key determinant for evaluation of policy document consistency, is whether the project would substantially further or advance the goals and policies of these applicable policy documents.

A General Plan (GP), and Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) consistency analysis for the Cannabis Regulations Project is provided below. Applicable General Plan Goals and Polices are prefaced with the letters “GP” and applicable Belmont Village Specific Plan Goals and Policies are prefaced with the letters “BVSP”. Based on the analysis below, staff recommends that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. 1 Land Use Goals and Policies
General Land Use
GP Goal 2.1: Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the city, to enable people to live close to job locations, adequate and convenient commercialservices, andpublic services and facilities such as transit, parks, and schools.

GP Policy 2.5-1 Foster a variety of uses and activities in the Belmont Village PDA, including residential, commercial, office, restaurants, and specialty retail shops, to attract residents and visitors from across the region by creating a lively, interesting, social environment.

GP Policy 2.9-2 Require that new development “pays its way” so as to limit fiscal impacts on the City.

GP Policy 2.3-4 Focus new development in or directlyadjacenttoalready-developedareas, where it can be served by existing public services and infrastructure.

BVSP Policy 2.1-6 Promote significant new non-residential development, including retail, office, and other uses in order to establish a diversified and expanded employment base and to increase the daytime population in the Village, which will in turn help support businesses in the Village. In particular, encourage the provision of office uses in the Village Corridor Mixed Use district.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. The project would include the adoption of overlay districts in commercial and mixed use zones to allow new cannabis retail and distribution uses. These new uses would increase the diversity of retail/distribution uses described in the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO). The potential locations for these new uses would be in already developed areas that have access to all necessary public services and infrastructure. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and payment of all applicable project review/impact fees would be required for establishment of these new uses.
1 The City has not received a specific development application for the establishment of a cannabis retail or distribution use. Thus, staff evaluated General Plan consistency for the project based on the establishment of the new cannabis retail and distribution overlay districts. Absent the submittal of specific development application, key policy review areas include Land Use, Economic Development, Circulation, and Safety. 29 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
2 | P a g e
Land Use Goals and Policies
Land Use – Mixed Use & Compatibility
GP Policy 2.5-2 Seek an increased presence of both residents and activity in Belmont Village with new development, including residential as part of mixed-use development, as well as commercial, entertainment, and cultural uses that serve both residents and visitors.

BVSP Policy 2.1-8 Promote the addition of uses, activities, and attractions that will draw both day and nighttime visitors to the Village, such as more restaurants (full-service as well as cafes), entertainment venues, and art and cultural destinations.

GP Policy 2.6-3 Allow repair shops, small warehouses, wholesale establishments, and light manufacturing uses to be located in Service Commercial designations.

GP Goal 2.8 Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses.

GP Policy 2.13-4 & GP Policy 5.3-6 Minimize light and glare from new development; Avoid light pollution and unnecessary glare by requiring development projects to use design features and shielding methods that cast outdoor light downward and minimize glare and to install the minimum amount of outdoor lighting necessary for safety and security.

GP Policy 2.6-5 Ensure that commercial uses are built and operated in such a way as to complement but not conflict with adjacent residential uses. This can be accomplished by such means including, but not limited to: • Controlling lights, signage, and hours of operation to avoid adversely impacting surrounding uses. • Requiring adequate landscaped buffers between commercial and residential uses. • Providing bicycle and pedestrian links between commercial centers and surrounding residential uses, and providing bicycle- parking racks. • Ensuring building mass does not adversely impact surrounding residences through use of appropriate transitions in building height and mass.

Policy 2.6-6 Ensure that commercial development is designed to include: • Integrated landscaping, parking (if required), signs, and site and building design. • Common ingress and egress, safe and convenient access and internal circulation (depending on site size), adequate off-street parking and loading facilities (if required), and accessibility by multiple modes of transportation. • Architecture that emphasizes establishing community identity while presenting tasteful, dignified, and visually appealing designs compatible with their surroundings.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. Retail cannabis uses have the potential to bring additional people to downtown/commercial and mixed use areas during both the daytime and early evening hours.

Cannabis distribution uses would be compatible with other permitted warehouse and distribution uses.

Establishment of these new uses would require approval of a CUP to address potential light, glare, noise, traffic, and parking issues, and to ensure that these projects conform to specific development standards related to total number of permitted dispensaries, distance between dispensaries from schools, parks, and daycare facilities, hours of operation, customer management, and odor. The CUP process would also include Police Department (PD) review and approval of operational/safety plans and state licensing to ensure that these uses operate in accordance with all applicable laws (i.e., use of products on site or in public places would be prohibited, security personnel would be required to prevent sales to minors and loitering, cannabis products and graphics representing cannabis products may not be visible from the exterior of the facility, and products must be stored and sold from inside a completely enclosed building). Design Review would also be required for any new building or exterior building alteration to ensure projects are consistent with established requirements for building design, signage, and landscaping.
30 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
3 | P a g e
Land Use Goals and Policies
Land Use & Economic Growth
GP Goal 2.6 Promote opportunities for continued economic growth and vitality, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, increased local employment opportunities, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.

GP Policy 2.6-1 Promote the El Camino Real corridor, Carlmont Village, the area East of US 101, the Harbor Industrial Area, and Davis Drive as focus areas for economic growth.

GP Policy 2.6-2 Accommodate a diversity of business establishments in appropriate-scaled settings according to each land use designation and the Land Use Diagram, including larger scale employment or industrial uses, regional- and neighborhood-serving commercial and mixed use centers, and smaller size stores, restaurants, and offices, to meet employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs of residents and visitors.

GP Goal 2.7 Provide areas for diverse employment and business opportunities to promote diversity in Belmont’s economic base.

GP Policy 2.7-1 Support efforts to increase the availability of local jobs to enhance Belmont’s jobs to employed residents ratio.

GP Goal 2.17 Support a wide range of economic activity in Belmont that capitalizes on the city’s location, strengthens the City’s tax base, and ensures that Belmont has adequate fiscal resources to fund high quality public services for its residents and businesses.

GP Policy 2.17-1 Leverage regional economic growth and prosperity to encourage economic development opportunities in a manner that is consistent with Belmont’s vision, aesthetic, culture, and identity.

GP Policy 2.17-2 Support efforts to increase the tax base in Belmont and maintain fiscal sustainability.

GP Goal 2.22 Promote the continued development and revitalization of Belmont’s focus areas for economic growth as integral parts of the community and nodes of commercial, employment, or residential activity.

GP Goal 2.18 Facilitate retention, expansion, attraction, and incubation of businesses in Belmont that will employ and serve Belmont residents and meet the city’s economic development objectives.

GP Policy 2.20-2 Create and implement incentives to encourage development and redevelopment along El Camino Real that supports the vision for the area.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. The project would promote development on the El Camino Real corridor, portions of Ralston Avenue and Old County Road, and in the area east of Highway 101.

The project also has the potential to attract new businesses to Belmont, increase the availability of local jobs, and create synergies with existing restaurant and retail uses. In addition, the increased economic activity associated with the project would strengthen the City’s tax base, and ensure that Belmont has adequate fiscal resources to help fund high quality public services for its residents and businesses.
31 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
4 | P a g e
Safety Goals and Policies
Safety & Fire / Police
GP GOAL 6.6 Protect Belmont residents and businesses from potential fire hazards.

GP Policy 6.6-3 Continue to review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for evacuation and access by emergency responders.

GP Policy 6.6-5 Continue to require a fire prevention inspection of all buildings used as commercial businesses, places of assembly, multi-family residences, and hotels within the Belmont Fire Protection District’s boundaries.

BVSP Goal 5.6 Ensure that new development adequately addresses public safety considerations in building design and site planning.

BVSP Policy 5.6-1 Coordinate with the Police Department on projectsite design to increase public safety.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. A cannabis use/development proposal submitted under the new regulations would be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure appropriate fire mitigation measures are incorporated. The Police Department would review cannabis use/development proposals for compliance with a City Commercial Cannabis Permit, and state licensing requirements. The Police Department would also review and approve the applicant’s security and operations plans, prior to approval of a CUP to establish the use. The security and operations plans would identify lighting, alarm/surveillance, patron management, and security personnel requirements to ensure safe operation of the business.

Safety Goals and Policies
Safety & Flood
GP GOAL 6.2 Protect the community from risks to life and property posed by flooding.

GP Policy 6.2-1 Continue to pursue and implement flood control programs that reduce flood hazards, such as the City’s Grading Ordinance and Flood Plain Management Ordinance.

GP Policy 6.2-3 Require all proposed drainage facilities to comply with the city’s storm drainage facility requirements to ensure they are properly sized to handle 100-year flood conditions.

BVSP Goal 6.2 Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social disruption resulting from natural and man-made hazards, including floods.

BVSP Policy 6.2-1 Ensure new projects within the 100-year Flood Zone are designed to reduce flood risk. Strategies include site planning to minimize flood risk and applying flood safe standards to new construction.
32 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
5 | P a g e
Conservation Goals and Policies
Conservation & Cultural Resources
GP GOAL 5.12 Preserve and protect areas and sites of prehistoric, cultural, and archaeological significance.

GP Policy 5.12-1 Ensure that development avoids potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or culturally significant, tribal or otherwise, or of concern by requiring appropriate and feasible mitigation.

Action 5.12-1a: Establish guidelines and mitigation programs when sites of archaeological, paleontological, and/or cultural concern, tribal or otherwise, would be disturbed by development, including:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
• Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and, • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

GP Policy 5.12-2 If cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or cultural resources, tribal or otherwise, are discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected until evaluation by a qualified professionalis completed.
• A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. • Use the State Office of Historic Preservation’s recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports as guidelines.

BVSP Policy 2.2-2 Archeological and Paleontological Resources. Require any unanticipated discovery of archeological or paleontological resources to be evaluated by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist. If the discovery is determined to be potentially significant, a treatment plan shall be developed in accordance with State law. For projects with large amounts of ground disturbance, consider requiring architectural monitoring. Any unanticipated discovery of resources of Native American origin requires consultation with and participation by tribes located within the project site.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. A records review and a cultural resource evaluation (CRE) by a qualified consultant would be required for development proposals that include grading. The CRE would need to contain recommended measures consistent with Policies 5.12-2 and 2.2-2 to address any unanticipated cultural finds.
33 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
6 | P a g e
Conservation Goals and Policies
Conservation & Water Quality
GP Policy 5.5-2 Encourage residents and businesses to use best management practices (BMPs) to reduce water pollutant loads that result from dailyactivities, such as using landscaping chemicals and fertilizers and repairing and washing cars outdoors.

GP Policy 5.5-3 Require development projects to incorporate structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate or reduce the projected increases in pollutant loads, in accordance with the NPDES permit guidelines.

GP Policy 5.5-5 Implement water pollution prevention methods to the maximum extent practicable, supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment.

GP Policy 5.9-2 Encourage development projects of all sizes to incorporate site design measures that facilitate groundwater recharge and natural hydrological processes, allowing stormwater to infiltrate the ground on-site and/or be collected for reuse in landscaping and designated to on-site stormwater detention facilities. Such measures may include:
• Canopy trees or shrubs toabsorb rainwater;
• Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
• Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
• Installation of green roofs on buildings;
• Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
• On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basinsto facilitate infiltration; and • Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

GP GOAL 5.9 Maintain and improve the reliability of the City’s storm drainage system, and promote best management practices to protect this system from flooding, enhance water quality, and prevent infrastructure deterioration.

BVSP Policy 5.1-3 Ensure that development projects in the Planning Area comply with the requirements of theMunicipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.

BVSP Policy 5.1-7 Require development in the Belmont Village Planning Area to include low impact development features to reduce stormwater pollutant loads and increase on-site infiltration.

BVSP Goal 6.1 Preserve natural environmental processes that protect health and safety, such as water filtration through soil that protects water quality and riparian vegetation that minimizes erosionand flooding.
34 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
7 | P a g e
Conservation & Water Quality (Continued)
BVSP Policy 6.1-1 Design storm drainage and flood controlstructures to minimize erosion and creek sedimentation and to preserve and enhance the wildlife habitat and vegetation of Belmont Creek.

BVSP Goal 6.3 Protect and improve the quality of biological resources and habitat areas in the Planning Area.

BVSP Policy 6.3-4 Encourage property owners, business owners, and residents to use native plants in landscaping.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. The NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit limits the severity of any potential environmental effects caused by developments associated with the buildout of the General Plan and BVSP. The county’s SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each incorporated city in the County and the County of San Mateo, which share a common NPDES Permit or Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The MRP outlines the State’s requirements for municipal agencies in San Mateo County to address the water quality and flow-related impacts of stormwater runoff. Some of these requirements are implemented directly by municipalities while others are addressed by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program on behalf of all the municipalities.

A development proposal would be reviewed by the Department of Public Works to ensure the project would comply with all state and federal water quality requirements. In addition, the proposed project would need to be compliant with General Plan and BVSP policies that require: 1) the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce construction and operational water pollutant loads; 2) implementation of Urban Design guidelines for Low Impact Development (as applicable for Special projects); 3) streetscape and landscape designs that manage stormwater, to ensure that runoff potential does not exceed the storm drain system’s capacity; 4) documentation of the site investigation and cleanup of impacted soil and groundwater during development project review; and 5) remediation and cleanup of impacted soil, soil vapor and waters in compliance with federal and State standards.

Conservation Goals and Policies
Conservation & Water Supply
GP Policy 5.6-4 Set appropriate conditionsof approvalfor each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary watersupply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy.

GP Policy 5.6-5 Continue the City’s Water Conservation Strategy to reduce water use, control water cost, and promote environ- mental sustainability in municipal buildings, parks, landscaped areas, and athletic fields, as feasible and appropriate.

BVSP Policy 5.1-1 Continue to support the Mid-Peninsula Water District in its operation and maintenance of the water system, to ensure all current and future developments have access to the water system and adequate water supply.

BVSP Policy 5.1-4 To reduce water consumption, encourage new development, including through the promotion of rebates, to install low-flow showerheads, faucets, and toilets; smart irrigation controllers; and drought- tolerant landscaping.
35 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
8 | P a g e
BVSP Policy 5.1-5 Design new streetscape and landscaped areas for stormwater management and the efficient use and conservation of water.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. There would be no large scale farming or growing operations as part of the new regulations for cannabis. Retail cannabis sales and distribution would not be expected to use large quantities of water. A development application that includes landscaping would need to comply with the stormwater requirements, and water efficiency in landscaping requirements of the Mid-Peninsula Water District.

Conservation Goals and Policies
Conservation & Air Quality
GP GOAL 5.10 Reduce emissions of ozone- producing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of Belmont and Bay Area residents.

GP Policy 5.10-2 Require that new development with sensitive uses that is located adjacent to sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) be designed to minimize any potential health risks.

GP Policy 5.10-3 Ensure that construction and grading activities minimize short-term impacts to air quality by employing appropriate mitigation measures and best practices.

Action 5.10-3a: Require applicants proposing new development projects within the Planning Area to require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures(based on BAAQMD’s(2011)CEQA: Use local building materials of at least 10 percent (sourced from within 100 miles of the planning area). Recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

GP Policy 5.10-5 Provide information about non-toxic alternatives to construction, interior and exteriorfinishes and furnishings, and planting and landscaping maintenance to contractors, business owners and homeowners to enhance indoor and outdoor air quality and reduce exposure to toxins.

GP Policy 5.10-6 Ensure compliance with the most current Bay Area Clean Air Plan by implementing the Plan’s recommended Transportation Control Measures (TCMs).

Determination & Discussion: Consistent.

Proposed development projects that include grading would be required to be consistent with the above policies. These policies would be implemented through the planning and building permit processes. 36 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
9 | P a g e
Circulation / Mobility Goals and Policies
Circulation / Mobility & Complete Streets
GP GOAL 3.1 Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles within and through the community that fosters accessibility and connectivity; accommodates a mixture of automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and encourages higher transit ridership.

GP Policy 3.1-5 Require new development and redevelopment projects to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes to provide and enhance connectivity to existing transportation facilities.

GP Policy 3.1-7 Create an accessible circulation network that is consistent with guidelines established by the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA), allowing mobility-impaired users, such as the disabled and seniors, to safely and effectively travelwithin and beyond the city.

GP Policy 3.2-5 Comply with the adopted Complete Streets Policy of the City of Belmont.

GP Policy 3.2-1 Promote energyefficiency and accommodate new and improved technology, such as alternative fuel vehicles, in meeting transportation needs.

Action 3.2-1a: Reduce dependence on single-occupant automobiles by supporting pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements; implementing Transportation Demand Management strategies; and increasing transit ridership.

Action 3.2-1b: Support the provision of infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric vehicle charging stations. to facilitate autonomous vehicle use, such as lanes, parking areas, etc.

BVSP Goal 3.4 Meet citywide goals of reducing automobile trips through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies.

BVSP Policy 3.4-1 Implement Transportation Demand Management for developments in the Planning Area. Require development projects to implement TDM measures according to the Village zoning regulations and encourage projects not meeting the threshold to consider implementing TDM.

BVSP policy 3.2-2 Improve facilities to encourage more bicycle and pedestrian travel. Improvements should include, but are not limited to: Provide on-street bike racks along streets within the Planning Area; Widen sidewalks within the Planning Area to accommodate two-way pedestrian movement and allow sufficient space for pedestrian amenities and street furnishings; Provide pedestrian-scaled lighting along streets and within public spaces throughout the Planning Area; and, Incorporate bicycle detection into existing signals.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. The S-3 Overlay for retail cannabis uses would be located in areas along Ralston Avenue and El Camino Real, which are in walking distance from the Belmont Caltrain Station, and SamTrans Bus stops. Depending on the scope of the projects, new development applications would be required to provide public improvements along all street frontages (i.e., wide sidewalks, and street trees.) that are consistent with adopted Complete Streets policies to promote the development of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and increase use of these facilities. Project applicants would also need to contribute fair-share portion fees for the construction of road improvements, based on project impacts to roadway intersections and segments, and include TDM plans to discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles. Lastly, development projects would need to include all required accessibility improvements consistent with guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
37 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
10 | P a g e
Circulation / Mobility Goals and Policies
Circulation / Mobility & Parking
GP GOAL 3.8 Provide a balanced and well-managed parking supply that accommodates demand while maximizing efficiency.

GP Policy 3.8-2 Ensure that adequate and convenient loading and unloading zones are provided in the Belmont Village PDA to serve pedestrians, transit, and deliveries.

GP Policy 3.8-5 Ensure that parking is consistent with guidelines established by theAmericans with Disabilities Act(ADA).

GP Policy 3.8-6 Ensure parking supplyassociated with the demand from future development is adequate, balanced, and does not adversely impact adjacent residential areas.

BVSP Goal 3.5 Provide parking that meets the needs of Belmont Village to ensure its vibrancy and economic vitality, while encouraging walking, cycling, and transit ridership as the primary modes of access to andwithin the Planning Area.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. Development projects for establishment of new cannabis uses would need to be consistent with parking requirements. Adequate and convenient vehicle parking, accessible parking, loading and unloading zones, EV charging parking spaces, and bicycle parking would need to be provided for development projects.

Hazardous Materials - Goals and Policies
Hazardous Materials - Contamination Remediation & Education GP GOAL 6.3 Protectsoils,surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.

GP Policy 6.3-1 Facilitate cleanup programs at contaminated sites, particularly on proper ties with the potential to develop or be reused for public purposes.

GP Policy 6.3-2 Require applicants for development projects in a potentially contaminated location to perform inspection and cleanup if the site is found to be contaminated with hazardous substances.

GP Policy 6.3-3 Require project applicants of potentially contaminated sites to have the site inspected by a registered Environmental Assessor. Reports detailing the results must be submitted for city review, and level of remediation must be in compliance with federal and state standards.

GP GOAL 6.4 Continue to promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education.

GP Policy 6.4-2 Educate residents and businesses about household hazardous wastes, less toxic materials that can be used in place of toxic materials, and proper household and business hazardous waste disposal methods
BVSP Goal 6.4 Ensure that infill development projects minimize exposure to hazardous materials and toxic air contaminants.
38 Attachment 5 - General Plan Consistency Analysis
11 | P a g e
BVSP Policy 6.4-1 Require remediation and cleanup of any contaminated sites in the Belmont Village Planning Area to levels required for the proposed new land use, where hazardous materials have impacted soil, surface water, or groundwater. Remediation and cleanup will be in compliance with federal and State standards. Documentation of the site investigation and cleanup must be provided to City staff during development project review.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. New development projects that include demolition and construction of new buildings, and new development on sites with known contamination require the submittal of Phase 1 environmental site assessments, in accordance with City requirements. If the Phase 1 identifies potential contamination of soils or ground water, a Phase 2 assessment is required. In accordance with General Plan Policies and the City’s General Plan EIR, contaminated sites must be remediated prior to development.

Noise - Goals and Policies
Noise
GP GOAL 7.1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the environmental, health, and safety needs of present and future residents of Belmont.

GP Policy 7.1-2 Use the Community Noise Level Exposure Standards, shown in Table 7-1, as review criteria for new land uses. Require all new development that would be exposed to noise greater than the “normally acceptable” noise level range to reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures.

GP Policy 7.1-5 Ensure that building regulations require that noise-generating appliances serving new multi-family or mixed-use residential development are located or adequately insulated to protect residents from the noise.

Determination & Discussion: Consistent. The proposed cannabis retail and distribution regulations require that these uses be operated in a fully enclosed building, between the hours of 9:00AM and 9:00PM. Establishment of these new uses would also require approval of a CUP to address potential noise, and to ensure that these projects conform to operation plans that would require customer management (i.e., that security personnel are present to prevent loitering around the project sites, so as to avoid loud conversations that may disturb neighbors). New development projects would also need to conform to all applicable goals and policies and the City’s adopted Noise Ordinance. 39 Attachment 6

CEQA ADDENDUM
Cannabis Regulations Ordinance
Background
Environmental Review
The Belmont City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that evaluated the environmental impacts of the City’s 2035 General Plan, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP), and Climate Action Plan (CAP) on October 24, 2017 (the “General Plan EIR” - SCH #2016082075). The Council made the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and a statement of overriding consideration for the project on November 14, 2017.

In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15162, if the lead agency reviewing a subsequent project finds that no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required compared to what was outlined in the EIR, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.

Development Project
Commercial Cannabis Overlay Zone Amendments: The project would include the adoption of an Ordinance that amends the City’s Zoning Map, establishing overlay combining districts that allow retail sales (S-3 Overlay), and distribution (S-4 Overlay) of cannabis products. The specific Zoning Map changes, and the regulations for sale and distribution of cannabis products are described in greater detail below. The draft Ordinance and a Zoning Map exhibit are included as attachments to the June 7, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report.

The subject Zoning Text/Base map Amendments center on the following modifications:

1. Establishing the S-3 Cannabis Retail & Distribution Combining District; this overlay zone is located primarily along El Camino Real (ECR) - both east & west side fronting properties - with the exception of properties located in the Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) area with ECR frontage. The S-3 District also extends along a portion of Ralston Avenue east of the Caltrain station to Granada Street, along a portion of west side Old County Road (OCR) from Masonic Way to the 700 Block of OCR, and along a portion of both east and west side Old County Road from Ralston Avenue (going south) to the southern border (of San Carlos).

2. Establishing the S-4 Cannabis Distribution Combining District; this overlay zone is exclusively located along the west side of Old County Road (OCR) from the 700 Block to the northern border (of San Mateo), and includes all properties along Shoreway Road.

3. Modifications to BZO Section 3 to list the two new combining districts; Section 9 to define Cannabis Retail & Distribution as conditional uses in the subject overlay combining districts; and Section 10 (Planning Procedures) regarding Zoning Administrator (ZA) review authority of a Use Permit for the proposed uses.
40 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 2

4. Modifications to Section 21 (Combining Districts) to add the specific S-3 and S-4 Overlay Zones and the pertinent zoning standards:
• Cannabis Retail & Distribution Definitions
• Zoning Administrator Review Authority
• Use Permit Requirements
• Development Regulations
• Performance Standards
• Reference to the Zoning Basemap for the location of the S-3 & S-4 Overlay Districts

5. The proposed Cannabis Use Development Regulations include the following:
(1) The use may only be established and operate inside a completely enclosed building. (2) The location of a Cannabis Retail use when initially established must comply with the following:
(A) The use must be at least 600 feet from a school or other Cannabis Retail use and at least 100 feet from parks and actively operated child day care centers. (B) The distances in subparagraph (A) are measured from the building containing the Cannabis Retail use either (i) in a straight line to the boundary of a property containing the incompatible use, or (ii) by the length of the shortest path of travel over which the general public has a right to travel to the boundary of a property containing the incompatible use, whichever is more restrictive. (C) The public entrance to the Cannabis Retail use may not be located immediately adjacent to a youth-oriented business on the same frontage as the entrance. (3) The site and building must be suitably designed to be secure.

6. The proposed Cannabis Use Performance Standards include the following:
(1) State Licensing. The use must fully comply with all applicable operational rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity in Business & Professions Code Division 10.
(2) Hours of Operation. A use may be open and operate only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
(3) Consumption. Consumption of cannabis on the premise must not be allowed. (4) Smoking. Smoking or vaping of any kind on premises must not be allowed. (5) Odor. Cannabis odor must not be detectible outside the building from any place accessible to the public or from adjoining private property. 41 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 3
(6) Public services. Operation of the business must not place a burden on the provision of public services disproportionate to other retail uses.
(7) Exterior Security Lighting. Adequate external lighting must be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be sufficient to provide illumination and clear visibility to all outdoor areas, with minimal spillover on adjacent properties. The lighting must be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and compatible with the neighborhood.
(8) Security. On-site security must be provided for Cannabis Retail uses during the hours of operation when clients are present.
(9) Commercial Cannabis Permit. The use must fully comply with all applicable local permit rules and regulations governing commercial cannabis activity, including operational permit requirements and conditions and approved operational plans under any other city ordinance or code.
(10) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the use permit and the requirements of a local operations permit issued by the police department, the more restrictive performance requirements apply.

A maximum of up to three (3) commercial retail cannabis use permits are allowed, and a maximum of four (4) cannabis distribution use permits are allowed, as lawfully permitted via the Cannabis Regulatory Ordinance, and Zoning Administrator Use Permit review process.

Purpose of the Addendum
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed development project would result in any new or substantially greater significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the General Plan EIR.

This Addendum has been prepared with consideration of the previously certified FEIR, which is incorporated by reference under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150. The FEIR is available for review at the Community Development Department, Belmont City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Suite #310, Belmont, CA 94002. The Executive Summary Table of the General Plan EIR and the MMRP adopted for the project are included as exhibits to this addendum.

CEQA Authority for the Addendum
The CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation that is required when changes to a project occur after an EIR has been adopted. Section 15164(a) states:
“The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” 42 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 4
When the lead agency has previously adopted an EIR, no new EIR need be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following, per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Project Evaluation
General Plan / BVSP Buildout
The General Plan EIR considered all potential environmental impacts under an assumed maximum buildout for the City and the BVSP Area in 2035. Since the adoption of the General Plan EIR, there have been no major commercial development projects approved within the BVSP Area, or within the City at large. The table below provides the maximum BVSP buildout identified in the GP EIR, and the approved commercial development to date. 43 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 5
Table 1- BVSP Buildout & Commercial Development Projects 2013 Year 2035 Year Growth Remaining
Jobs 1,440 2,450 30 975
Non-Residential
sq. ft. 679,000 1,044,000 5,102 359,698
As provided in Table 1 above, there are still numerous jobs, and non-residential floor area within the remaining development limits of the BVSP project area. It should be noted that the subject overlay district areas are generally already developed with existing commercial uses/structures.

No development is proposed in conjunction with the proposed Zoning Text/Basemap Amendments Project. Individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution operators would be subject to CEQA clearance for the subject properties intended for operation.

Development Project Impacts
The General Plan EIR identifies: 1) the potential impacts of the buildout of the General Plan; and 2) the General Plan, BVSP, CAP policies that would reduce or mitigate project impacts. As such, development projects are considered to be within the scope of the project covered by the General Plan Program EIR when they are found consistent with these relevant General Plan, BVSP, and CAP policies designed to mitigate or reduce impacts; however, individual development projects also need to comply with mitigation measures identified in the adopted General Plan MMRP.

The proposed development project is evaluated for consistency with the adopted General Plan EIR and the MMRP, in the tables and discussion that follow on pages 5 through 38 of this document.

The tables and discussion reference Table ES-3 of the General Plan EIR (see Exhibits), which provides an outline of the significant impacts of the General Plan, and the policies and mitigation measures designed to reduce these impacts to the extent possible. The MMRP adopted for the General Plan EIR is also referenced (see Exhibits).

Table 2-Aesthtics
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.1-1 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.1-2 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.1-3 No No No
Impact 4.1-4 No No No
44 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 6
Aesthetics: There are no scenic vistas or scenic corridors in the overlay areas where the project would occur (Impacts 4.1-1 & 4.1-2). Individual development projects would be required to be consistent with all other objective development and design standards, street frontage standards, lighting standards (i.e., full cutoff lighting) and design standards identified in the DEIR and the BVSP to reduce aesthetic impacts to less than significant ((Impacts 4.1-3 & 4.1-4).

Table 3-Air Quality
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.2-1 No No No
Impact 4.2-2 No No No
Impact 4.2-3 No No No
Impact 4.2-4 No No No
Impact 4.2-5 No No No
Impact 4.2-6 No No No
Impact 4.2-7 No No No
Air Quality:

Air Quality Plans & Standards
The General Plan and BVSP would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regional air quality strategy (Impact 4.2-1). The General Plan EIR indicates that individual development projects have the potential for construction and operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD’s project level thresholds; however, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce construction related emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would address operational-related emissions (see Exhibits). Thus, Individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution projects would be required to implement the following mitigation measures as conditions of project approval (Impacts 4.2-2 through 4.2-4).
45 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 7
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Number Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Equipment. All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on an EPA-approved Tier 4 or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA- approved Tier 3 engine. ARB regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years.

AQ-2 Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel. All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable). Renewable diesel is currently commercially available in San Francisco Bay Area.

AQ-3 Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction. All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-VOC coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less are used during construction. The project applicant will submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Number Mitigation Measure
AQ-4 Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices. All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive dust by implementing BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas. The following measures are based on BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite will be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as 46 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 8
possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the District will also be visible to ensure compliance.

AQ-5 Promote Green Consumer Products. For all projects developed within the Planning Area, developer(s) shall provide education for residential and commercial tenants concerning green consumer products. Prior to receipt of any certificate of final occupancy, the project sponsors shall work with the City of Belmont to develop electronic correspondence to be distributed by email to new residential and commercial tenants that encourages the purchase of consumer products that generate lower than typical VOC emissions. Examples of green products may include low-VOC architectural coatings, cleaning supplies, and consumer products, as well as alternatively fueled landscaping equipment
Sensitive Receptors
The General Plan EIR indicates that the construction of individual development projects has the potential to expose sensitive receptors (residential uses, hospitals, schools, daycare centers, etc.) to toxic air contaminants (TACs). Thus, Mitigation Measure AQ-6, below, requires that all projects proposing development within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors prepare a sitespecific 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 BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary.

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
AQ-6 Require Future Projects Located within 1,000 Feet of Receptors Perform a Construction Health Risk Assessment. All applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), shall prepare a site-specific construction 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 BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be un- necessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project- level thresholds, additional feasible on- and offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.

Individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution projects would be required to submit an HRA for the project that demonstrates compliance with BAAQMD project level thresholds. Thus, no new significant impacts would occur (Impact 4.2-5).

Carbon Monoxide
Traffic volumes under the General Plan and BVSP would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in excess of the state or federal 1- or 8-hour CO standards. Consequently. CO concentrations in 2035 would be lower than under existing (2013) conditions, despite an increase in traffic volumes. This decrease is due to expected improvements in vehicle engine technology, 47 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 9
fuel efficiency, and turnover in older, more heavily polluting vehicles, which reduces exhaust emissions. Since predicted CO concentrations would not violate the NAAQS, the impact of traffic conditions on ambient CO levels in the Planning Area would be less than significant (Impact 4.2- 6).

Objectionable Odors
Potential odor emitters during construction activities include diesel exhaust, asphalt paving, and the use of architectural coatings and solvents. Construction-related operations near existing receptors would be temporary, and construction activities would not be likely to result in nuisance odors that would violate BAAQMD Regulation 7. Given mandatory compliance with BAAQMD rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create a significant level of objectionable odors. Accordingly, odor impacts would be less than significant (Impact 4.2-7).

Table 4 – Biological Resources
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.3-1 No No No
Impact 4.3-2 No No No
Impact 4.3-3 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.3-4 No No No
Impact 4.3-5 No No No
Impact 4.3-6 N/A N/A N/A
Biological Resources:

Habitat Modification & Protected Species
The overlay districts generally include previously developed properties; these properties are not located in any known sensitive habitat areas. No development is proposed in conjunction with the recommended Zoning Text/Basemap Amendments. Applications in sensitive habitat areas require submittal of a biological assessment, which identifies potential impacts to sensitive species, riparian habitats or wetlands on or near the project site, and appropriate mitigation measures (Impact 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 & 4.3-6).

Migratory Birds
Nesting migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Should proposed project construction occur in close proximity to trees on adjacent sites, which may disturb nesting migratory birds, significant impacts to migratory birds would not occur with adherence to the following measure:
48 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 10
“If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), preconstruction nesting bird surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist in order to identify possible nesting activity. A construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around active nests (typically up to 50 feet for passerines and up to 250 feet for raptors, depending on the location and species) for the duration of the project or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents."
The City utilizes a standard condition of project approval (COA) to protect nesting migratory birds.

The COA requires that the applicant either avoid construction activities (i.e., tree removal, demolition, grading, and construction) during the active nesting season, or conduct surveys for nesting birds and provide appropriate buffer zones, as follows:

COA – Nesting Birds
• To minimize potential impacts on nesting raptors, the applicant shall either: 1) Avoid construction activities (i.e., tree pruning, tree removal, tree protection work, demolition, grading, and construction) during the active nesting season (between February 1, and August 31); or 2) Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and provide appropriate buffer zones, if construction has the potential to impact nesting birds.

Note: Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist or ornithologist in order to ensure that no raptor nests will be disturbed during project implementation. This survey will be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for raptor nests. If an active raptor nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest.

Subject to this standard condition of project approval for nesting birds identified above, no significant impacts would occur with respect to nesting migratory birds (Impact 4.3-4).

Tree Protection
General Plan policies require compliance with the City's adopted tree preservation ordinance (Chapter 25 of the City Code). The Tree Ordinance provides a process and standards for review of projects that may impact or remove protected trees. Environmental impacts are considered mitigated for projects that adhere to this policy. Thus, if tree removal is associated with individual development projects, adherence to the requirements of the Tree Ordinance (i.e., submittal of an Arborist Report with recommendations for tree protections) and the following standard conditions of approval:
49 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 11
COAs – Tree Protection
• The applicant shall implement the Tree Protection Guidelines identified in the Arborist Report, prepared for the project; the project arborist shall review the final building and grading plans, and confirm in writing any changes to the design recommendations. The guidelines shall be included on a plan sheet submitted with the building permit application. • Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit written confirmation from the Project Arborist that all tree protection measures, and pre-construction treatments have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the arborist’s specifications. • Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the tree protection zone shall be monitored by the project arborist.
• Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist.
• If unplanned or unapproved tree injuries or tree removals occur during project construction, the applicant shall contact City Planning Staff. Additional permits may be required. • After completion of exterior construction work and before final building permit inspection, the applicant shall submit a final written report/letter from the Project Arborist. Said report/letter shall provide an evaluation of the construction impacts to the subject tree’s health or structural stability, and shall identify any additional provisions that may be required to these address impacts. The applicant shall be responsible to implement these recommendations. A final report may be required on the effectiveness of the measures.

Subject to these standard conditions of project approval for tree protection, the project would not have a significant impact on trees, and would not conflict with City policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the Tree Ordinance (Impact 4.3-5).

Table 5 – Cultural Resources
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.4-1 No No No
Impact 4.4-2 No No No
Impact 4.4-3 No No No
Impact 4.4-4 No No No
Impact 4.4-5 No No No
50 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 12
Cultural Resources:

Historic Structures
The City’s standard process for review of development projects requires submittal of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared by an architectural historian for national, state or locally listed historical structures, structures eligible for listing, and structures greater than forty-five years’ old that would be altered or demolished as part of a project. The HRE identifies the potential impacts of a project to the historical resource, and recommends mitigation measures. Projects with potentially significant impacts to historical structures require environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project overlay district includes two sites that are identified in General Plan EIR Figure 4.4- 1(Historic Resources in the Planning Area) as historically significant: 730 El Camino Real and 1110 Old County Road. No other project sites are listed, but numerous buildings would meet the forty-five-year threshold for review of potential historical impacts. As previously discussed, no development is proposed in conjunction with the recommended Zoning Text/Basemap Amendments. An individual Cannabis Retail or Distribution operator would be subject to CEQA clearance for the subject property intended for operation, including an evaluation for impacts to historical structures (consistent with the policies of the General Plan EIR). As such, no new potential impacts not identified in the General Plan EIR would occur from the development project (Impact 4.4-1).

Archaeological & Paleontological
The General Plan EIR indicates potentially unrecorded archaeological sites may exist in Belmont, particularly along Belmont and Laurel creeks, near wetlands areas, and in the foothill to valley ecotones (ecological transition areas). The EIR further notes that future development projects allowed under the EIR may involve grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities, which could disturb or damage unknown archaeological resources.

Although implementation of project grading plans may result in actions that could adversely affect archaeological resources, the General Plan includes policies and regulations that would minimize or avoid impacts by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources. Specifically, the General Plan includes Policies 5.12-1, 5.12-2 and 2.2-2 and Actions 5.12-1a, and 5.12-2b that require establishing guidelines and mitigation programs when sites of archaeological, paleontological, and/or cultural concern would be disturbed by development, including:
1) Reviewing records for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive.
2) Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA).
3) Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity. 4) Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval (i.e., halting construction when resources are uncovered, evaluating the find, and implementing avoidance measures and/or mitigation plans as required by CEQA). 51 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 13
The recommendations in a Cultural Resources Evaluation are required to be noted on the project plans. The City’s standard project conditions of approval (COAs) conditions of approval are as follows:

COAs – Cultural Resource
• Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that construction crews have proper training for the discovery, handling and retention methods for paleontological, archeological and/or cultural resources found at the project site. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include: chert, or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark, friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heataffected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include: stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits or bottle dumps. • In the event that paleontological, archaeological, and/or cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, all construction activity in the area of the find shall be halted, and the Community Development Director shall be notified; an archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. A plan for the mitigation of impacts to the resources will be prepared and submitted to the City of Belmont for approval. Additional CEQA review may be required depending upon the evaluation of the find.

Proposed development projects that follow this process would be consistent with the environmental mitigations for cultural resource impacts (polices, programs, and actions) identified in the General Plan EIR. Subject to these provisions, and the standard project conditions of approval identified above, no significant impacts would occur with respect to archaeological/paleontological resources (Impacts 4.4-2, 4.4-3 & 4.4-5).

Human Remains
Proposed development projects would be required to comply with the procedures identified in the General Plan EIR for the discovery of any human remains (i.e., halting of construction, contacting the County Sherriff and Coroner, consulting with the Native American Heritage Commission, if applicable, etc.). These procedures have been incorporated into standard conditions of project approval, as follows:

COA- Human Remains
• If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on a project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

A. The San Mateo County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required;and,
B. If the remains are of Native American origin:

1. The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or 52 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 14

2. The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.

Subject to the procedures and condition of approval identified above, no impacts would occur as it relates to the discovery of human remains (Impact 4.2-4).

Table 6 – Geology, Soils & Seismicity
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.5-1 No No No
Impact 4.5-2 No No No
Impact 4.5-3 No No No
Impact 4.5-4 No No No
Geology, Soils & Seismicity:

Fault Rupture & Soil Erosion
According to the California Department of Conservation website the overlay districts are not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, so no fault rupture would be expected for any future development projects. The overlay districts include relatively flat project sites and do not include exposed slopes. In addition, the following standard erosion control COA would be required for construction of individual development projects to prevent significant soil erosion impacts (Impact 14.5-1):

COA - Erosion Control
• The applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system. The plan shall include the following items:
a) A site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography, and slopes; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal area; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourses or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas. b) Erosion and sediment controls to be used during construction, selected as appropriate from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Erosion and P.O. Box 791, Oakland, CA 94604-0791.
53 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 15
c) Methods and procedures to stabilize denuded areas and install and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
d) Provision for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site, such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, fiber rolls, silt fence, check dams, storm drain inlet protection, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stock piles and/or other measures. e) Provisions for installing vegetative cover in disturbed areas, including areas to be seeded, planted, and/or mulched, and types of vegetation proposed. f) Provision for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the project site (e.g., swales and dikes).
g) Notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetation and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; types of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation.

Seismic Ground Shaking, Liquefaction, & Lateral Spreading The subject overlay zone areas are in a seismically active region dominated by the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 4 miles west of the overlay zones, the Hayward Fault, which is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the overlay zones, and the northern portion of the Calaveras Fault, which is located approximately 22 miles northeast of the overlay zones. As such, the project sites would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and lateral spreading; however, any future proposed projects would be required to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC), to provide for the latest in earthquake safety and minimize losses from an earthquake.

The CBC contains the latest seismic safety requirements to resist ground shaking through modern construction techniques, which are periodically updated to reflect the most recent seismic research.

In addition, proposed General Plan Policy 6.1-2 requires the regulation of development on sites that have a history or threat of seismic dangers; Policy 6.1-4 requires geotechnical site analysis for proposed development on certain sites; and Policy 6.1-5 requires geotechnical studies that address the potential for ground shaking. With implementation of these policies, which supplement the existing building code requirements, the potential impacts from ground shaking would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible and are less than significant.

Consistent with the policies in the General Plan EIR and the requirements of the City Code, applicants would be required to submit a detailed geotechnical investigation for individual projects, which would be peer reviewed by the City’s consulting geologist. The standard City procedure requires geotechnical clearance (i.e., a concurrence from the City’s consulting geologist that the proposed project development is suitable for the site from a geotechnical perspective). 54 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 16
This recommendation includes standard conditions requiring geotechnical review of final building and grading plans and field inspections during construction, as follows:

COA – Geotechnical
• Geotechnical Plan Review - Before submittal to the City, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, building set-backs, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and access driveway/garage) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant shall ensure that the geotechnical design recommendations comply with the most current seismic design parameters of the California Building Code.

The results of the geotechnical plan review and updated geotechnical design recommendations shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. • Geotechnical Field Inspection –The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a certification letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy).

Subject to the procedures and conditions of approval identified above, no significant impacts are expected from individual development projects (Impacts 4.5-1 through 4.5-3).

Septic Systems
Individual development projects would be connected to the City's sewer system, per General Plan Policy 6.5-5 and the City Code. Therefore, no septic system impacts would occur (Impact 4.5-4).

Table 7 – Energy, Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.6-1 No No No
Impact 4.6-2 No No No
Impact 4.6-3 No No No
Impact 4.6-4 No No No
Impact 4.6-5 No No No
55 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 17
Energy, Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change:

Energy Efficiency & Energy Supplies
California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction, and climate change. The legislation establishes a broad framework for the State’s long-term energy and GHG reduction program. The Governor of California has also issued several executive orders related to the State’s evolving climate change policy.

The General Plan EIR anticipates an increase in overall energy usage as growth in the planning area occurs; however, EIR analysis indicates that the General Plan and BVSP policies would be consistent with or go beyond the state and local energy policies enacted to reduce energy consumption. The General Plan, BVSP and Climate Action Plan (CAP) include policies that encourage residential and non-residential uses in close proximity to employment centers and transportation corridors, improved access to transit, and the implementation of complete streets requirements as development occurs. These policies would reduce the intensity of energy consumption as compared to a no project alternative (i.e., increase energy efficiencies).

Individual development projects would be located in the BVSP, PDA and East of Highway 101 Areas, and would be consistent with all applicable General Plan, BVSP and CAP policies designed to reduce energy waste and inefficiency. Further, these projects would be required to comply with the most current state energy code requirements of Calgreen (green building code), and state and local water efficiency requirements. Thus, no new impacts would occur, and impacts would be less than significant (Impact 4.6-1 and 4.6-2).

Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions & Adopted GHG Reduction Plans CEQA Guidelines §15183.5 provides that: 1) quantified plans may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects; and 2) subsequent project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference the programmatic review conducted for the GHG reduction plan (CAP). The General Plan, CAP, and BVSP were adopted simultaneously, and all were studied in the General Plan EIR. The significance of GHG emissions generated by the buildout of the BVSP were evaluated and found consistent with all applicable measures outlined in the CAP and General Plan. Thus, projects that are consistent with the BVSP, and the policies of the CAP and General Plan would not conflict with the City’s ability to achieve future emission reduction goals.

The General Plan EIR Section for Energy, GHG and Climate Change provides applicable mitigation measures, actions, and policies for review of development project construction-related and operational GHG emissions. Development projects are required to be consistent with all applicable policies, and the action and mitigation measure listed below:

Action 5.10-3.a - Require applicants proposing new development projects within the Planning Area to require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on BAAQMD’s (2011) CEQA Guidelines):
56 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 18
• Use local building materials of at least 10 percent (sourced from within 100 miles of the planning area).
• Recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel.

All applicants proposing development of projects within Belmont shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable). Renewable diesel is currently commercially available in San Francisco Bay Area.

Individual development projects would be located in the BVSP, PDA and East of Highway 101 Areas, and would be consistent with all applicable General Plan, and CAP policies designed to reduce GHGs. Adherence to Action 5.10-3 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 will be required of the project as conditions of project approval, as follows:

COAs - GHG
• A minimum of 10% of the construction materials shall be acquired (sourced) within 100 miles of the planning area. Documentation shall be provided before the final building permit inspection.
• A minimum of 50% of the construction waste generated by this project shall be recycled or salvaged for use. Documentation shall be provided before the final building permit inspection.

Sample forms located at www.hcd.ca.gov/CALGreen.html may be used to assist in documenting compliance.
• Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation (i.e., construction contracts or signed agreements) demonstrating that all contractors and subcontractors agree to operate all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of work on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable).

Subject to the procedures and conditions of approval identified above, individual development projects would be consistent with the environmental mitigations for GHG impacts (polices, programs, and actions) identified in the General Plan EIR. As such, no significant impacts would occur with respect to construction- related or operational GHG emissions (Impacts 4.6-3 through

4.6-5).
57 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 19
Table 8 – Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.7-1 No No No
Impact 4.7-2 No No No
Impact 4.7-3 No No No
Impact 4.7-4 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.7-5 No No No
Impact 4.7-6 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.7-7 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.7-8 N/A N/A N/A
Hazards & Hazardous Materials:

Routine Transportation & Accidental Release
Regulatory Oversight
Federal and State regulations require adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials. The management of hazardous materials and waste within California is under the jurisdiction of California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), which coordinates the State’s Unified Program for permitting, inspecting, and enforcing regulations related to hazards materials. As the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the area, the County of San Mateo Environmental Health Services Department is responsible for implementing hazardous waste and materials State standards.

General Plan EIR
The methodology and assumptions identified in the General Plan EIR indicate that the hazardous materials analysis considered the range and nature of foreseeable hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal resulting from implementation of the General Plan EIR, and identified the primary ways that these hazardous materials could expose individuals or the environment to health and safety risks. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumed that residents and businesses in the Planning Area act in compliance with applicable federal, State, regional, and local health and safety laws and regulations and that new development under the Project (General Plan, BVSP & CAP) would comply with relevant federal, State, regional, and local ordinances and regulations.

The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the policies of the General Plan, and existing state and local regulations would reduce the impact of hazardous materials use, storage, 58 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 20
disposal, and accidental release to less than significant; however, the General Plan EIR analysis indicates that the review of environmental risks did not include any sampling, site-specific review, laboratory analysis, or physical inspection of buildings or site surfaces. The EIR notes that sitespecific investigation for projects developed under the General Plan Project will be required to address hazardous materials conditions. As such, Phase I environmental site assessments are required for specific projects, and if a Phase I assessment indicates the presence or likely presence of contamination, a Phase II soil/groundwater testing and remediation is required before development may occur.

Key considerations for the preparation of environmental assessments are whether the project site contains recognized environmental conditions (RECs), and if those conditions exceed established regulatory Screening Levels (SLs) based on the future uses of the site. Screening levels are generic (not site specific) levels that can be applied to any site and are considered to be protective of typical Bay Area sites. RECs and the SLs are further defined below. • The American Society for Testing and Materials for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ASTM E1527-13) defines a REC as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” • DTSC has developed modified screening levels (DTSC-SLs) for use in the human health risk assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. The DTSC-SLs should be used in preference to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) to evaluate chemical concentrations in environmental media at California sites and facilities. USEPA RSLs should be used for hazardous substances for which a DTSC-SL value is not available. The most current DTSC-SLs were published by DTSC in June 2020 (DTSC, 2020)
• The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board (Water Board) has developed Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) to provide conservative screening levels for over 100 chemicals found at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. The ESLs are intended to help expedite the identification and evaluation of potential environmental concerns at contaminated sites. ESLs address a range of media (soil, groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air) and a range of concerns (e.g., impacts to drinking water, vapor intrusion into indoor air, and impacts to aquatic habitat). The most current ESLs were published by the Water Board in November 2019 (Water Board, 2019).
• RSLs are SLs developed by the EPA for each of the 10 regions governed by the EPA. The City of Belmont is located in EPA Pacific Southwest Region 9. The most current RSLs for Region 9 were published by EPA in May 2020).

Types of Potential Impacts
Individual development projects with soil or water contamination are subject to both construction and operational impacts.
59 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 21
Construction Impacts
Project-related grading and excavation/removal of soils has the potential to adversely impact construction workers, and surrounding sensitive receptors. The CUPA (San Mateo County Environmental Health) requires applicants to submit a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to mitigate the potential impacts from the detections of soil vapor and potential unanticipated conditions that may be encountered during grading and planned for excavation during development activities (e.g., abandoned USTs, abandoned sumps or pits containing unknown liquids, etc.), and to provide for compliance with environmental regulations pertaining to conditions at the Site.

The SMP for a development project addresses two types of activities that may occur at contaminated sites: i) construction operations that will be required to minimize exposure of construction workers (i.e., VOCs in the soil vapor that may be encountered during site development); and ii) construction activities that will be necessary to comply with environmental permit conditions, if any. Activities that are addressed in an SMP typically include the following:
• Construction worker health and safety protocol;
• Site access and control;
• Soil management including soil import and off-site disposal of soil; • Dust and vapor control;
• Stormwater management; and,
• Unexpected conditions response.

SMPs that are consistent with the requirements of the CUPA, and standard conditions of project approval address the potential environmental impacts related to hazardous materials use, storage, disposal, and accidental release. Subject to these measures, impacts from individual development projects would be less than significant (Impact 4.7-1 & 4.7-2).

Portions of the project S-3 (Retail Cannabis) overlay zone is within ¼ mile of Central and Nesbit Elementary Schools; however, the DTSC website does not include the potential development project sites on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5.

As such, individual development projects would not involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials within a ¼ mile of a public school. In addition, the potential project sites are not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, or adjacent to a wildfire urban interface (WUI). Lastly, individual development projects (cannabis retail and distribution uses) would not close roadways or impair implementation of an emergency response/evacuation plan (i.e., they would not block ingress or egress of emergency responders or evacuees). Thus, there would be no project-related impacts in these areas (Impacts 4.7-3, 4.7-4, 4.7-6, 4.7-7, & 4.7-8).

Airport Land Use Plan Compatibility
The San Carlos Airport is located approximately one mile south of the City of Belmont. The Airport accommodates almost 400 based aircraft and a variety of aviation-related businesses including flight schools.

An Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs of San Carlos Airport was prepared according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements (see Attachment 9a).

Each ALUCP prevents exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within an airport influence 60 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 22
area over a 20-year horizon and are intended to encourage land uses in the vicinity surrounding an airport that are compatible with the airport land uses. California law requires that local government agencies affected by an ALUCP update their General and Specific Plans to be consistent with the ALUCP (California Government Code, Section 65302.3).

The City’s General Plan EIR considered the requirements of the ALUCP, and a determination of consistency was solicited from the Airport Land Use Commission, prior to taking action to approve the General Plan. Thus, impacts from the General Plan Project were found to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR; however, General Plan Policy 2.16-1 requires new development located in the San Carlos Airport Influence Area (AIA) to comply with applicable land use compatibility provisions of the San Carlos ALUCP through review and approval of a site development plan, or other development permit.

The overlay districts would involve retail / distribution uses, which are compatible with the San Carlos ALUCP for noise. Safety, air space protection/building height, and notification is evaluated when construction occurs (i.e., when the location and height of new buildings are known). Typical conditions for new projects are as follows:

COAs – FAA Notification
• A Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration must be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height. • If lighting or marking is installed (which, based on the FAA’s evaluation, are not necessary for aviation safety), it is recommended to be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 2. Adherence to these FAA policies will ensure that development of the site will not be a hazard to air navigation.

Table 9 – Hydrology, Flooding & Water Quality
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.8-1 No No No
Impact 4.8-2 No No No
Impact 4.8-3 No No No
Impact 4.8-4 No No No
Impact 4.8-5 No No No
Impact 4.8-6 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.8-7 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.8-8 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.8-9 N/A N/A N/A
61 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 23
Hydrology, Flooding & Water Quality:

Water Quality & Drainage
The General Plan EIR indicated that additional development within the city (i.e., buildout of the General Plan and BVSP) could increase the amount of impervious surfaces, and could therefore increase the amount of runoff and associated pollutants during both construction and operation; however, the General Plan EIR noted that the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) requires every construction activity within Belmont that has the potential to negatively affect water quality to comply with the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit. The NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit limits the severity of any potential environmental effects caused by developments associated with the buildout of the General Plan and BVSP.

The county’s SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each incorporated city in the County and the County of San Mateo, which share a common NPDES Permit or Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) outlines the State’s requirements for municipal agencies in San Mateo County to address the water quality and flow-related impacts of stormwater runoff. Some of these requirements are implemented directly by municipalities while others are addressed by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program on behalf of all the municipalities. The MRP is a comprehensive permit that evaluates activities related to construction sites, industrial sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations. The permit also requires a public education program, implementing targeted pollutant reduction strategies, and a monitoring program to help characterize local water quality conditions and to begin evaluating the overall effectiveness of the permit’s implementation.

The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) generally requires projects to utilize Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment; however, the MRP allows applicants to use alternative means of treatment depending on specific criteria (i.e., non-LID methods) for certain types of smart growth, high density, and transit-oriented development. These types of qualifying projects, known as Special Projects, can apply for alternative means of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment which may include non-LID methods in addition to LID practices of infiltration, harvest and use and biotreatment to manage stormwater runoff.

Qualifying projects may apply for reduction credits based on location and density criteria that allow non-LID treatment for a portion of the project’s runoff, but only after the applicant demonstrates why LID is infeasible for the proposed project. The LID reduction credits are intended to allow Smart Growth projects greater flexibility in meeting stormwater treatment requirements, based on the inherent environmental benefits of Smart Growth and potential technical challenges of implementing LID treatment exclusively on high-density sites in urban areas.

The Department of Public Works reviews individual development projects for compliance with all state and federal water quality requirements. In addition, the project are required to comply with General Plan and BVSP policies related to: 1) the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce construction and operational water pollutant loads; 2) implementation of Urban 62 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 24
Design guidelines for Low Impact Development (as applicable for Special projects); 3) streetscape and landscape designs that manage stormwater, to ensure that runoff potential does not exceed the storm drain system’s capacity; 4) documentation of the site investigation and cleanup of impacted soils or groundwater provided to City staff during development project review; and 5) remediation and cleanup of impacted waters in compliance with federal and State standards (if applicable).

As a result of implementation of existing federal, State and local regulations and the General Plan and BVSP policies described above, the impact of individual development projects on water quality would be less than significant (Impacts 4.8-1, & 4.8-3 through 4.8-5).

Groundwater Supplies
The potential project sites are located in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Sub-basin. The groundwater in this basin is not considered a good source of irrigation or municipal water use due to the high content of chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. The proposed project could increase demands for water; however, this increase in water demand would not impact local groundwater supplies, as the primary purveyor of water for the city is the MPWD, which currently does not utilize any local groundwater or surface water supplies to serve the city.

Flooding
According to the FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer map, portions of the Overlay Districts on El Camino Real and Shoreway Road are in, or adjacent to, flood zones; however, development proposals that are located in, or adjacent to, flood zones would be required to comply with the City’s standards for new construction to reduce flood risk (Impacts 4.8-6 through 4.8-8).

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
The City of Belmont is not subject to a Tsunami (ocean wave), and the project site is relatively flat (less than 10% slope), with no steep or precipitous slopes, which eliminates the likelihood of a mudflow. A Seiche is a wave from an enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water, such as the San Francisco Bay. The General Plan EIR indicates that the impacts of a Seiche would be mitigated (buffered) by wetlands, Foster City land, and Redwood City land. This buffer leads to a less than significant impact in regards to Seiche inundation. Thus, impacts from Seiches, Tsunamis, or Mudflows is either non-applicable to the project or less than significant (Impact 4.8-9).

Table 10 – Land Use, Population & Housing
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.9-1 No No No
Impact 4.9-2 No No No
Impact 4.9-3 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.9-4 No No No
Impact 4.9-5 N/A N/A N/A
63 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 25
Land Use, Population & Housing:

Community Division & Conflicts with Land Use Plans
Individual development projects would redevelop or reoccupy existing commercial /retail or warehouse distribution sites for the retail sale or distribution of cannabis products. The project would not include barriers that have the potential to physically divide an established community.

As discussed in this addendum, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Impacts 4.9-1 & 4.9-2).

Habitat Conservation Plan
No habitat conservation plans have been adopted in the planning area. Thus, this impact area would not be applicable to the project (Impact 4.9-3).

Substantial Population Growth or Displacement
The proposed project would not exceed the expected buildout of the BVSP Area (jobs and nonresidential floor area) that was studied in the General Plan EIR. The potential project sites are zoned commercial or mixed use, and individual development projects would not involve the relocation of any housing units. Thus, impacts in these areas would be either less than significant or not applicable to the project (Impact 4.9-4 & 4.9-5).

Table 11 – Noise
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.10-1 No No No
Impact 4.10-2 No No No
Impact 4.10-3 No No No
Impact 4.10-4 No No No
Impact 4.10-5 No No No
Impact 4.10-6 N/A N/A N/A
Noise:

Construction Noise & Vibration
The General Plan EIR indicates that construction noise and vibration associated with future development (i.e., General Plan and BVSP buildout) could expose sensitive receptors to noise and vibration levels that exceed the standards identified in the General Plan (a potentially significant and unavoidable impact). Increased operational noise from traffic, trains, and stationary sources is also identified as a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. 64 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 26
The potential construction noise, ground borne vibration, and operational noise impacts of the General Plan/BVSP buildout cannot be fully mitigated at the Program EIR (General Plan EIR) level, because of the uncertainty involved in evaluating the impacts on all potential future users of new development. The evaluation of noise impacts is “project/location specific” and noise impacts change over time as development occurs and traffic patterns change. Thus, in order to address potential noise impacts, the General Plan EIR: 1) identified comprehensive policies to limit the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, ground borne vibration, and operational noise; and 2) required that applicants for individual development projects evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts, and develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

Construction Noise & Vibration
The City requires the submittal of Noise and Vibration Assessments for construction projects, which evaluate project/location specific impacts and provide mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. The mitigation measures are included as project conditions of approval. In addition, conditions of approval are required by the City to ensure effective implementation of the Assessment’s noise measures, and consistency with the BVSP Policy 6.5-3, below. Subject to these measures and conditions of project approval, construction noise impacts would be less than significant (Impacts 4.10-1, 4.10-2, & 4-10-4).
• BVSP Policy 6.5-3 - Require developers to mitigate noise exposure to sensitive receptors from construction activities. Mitigation may include a combination of techniques that reduce noise generated at the source, increase the noise insulation at the receptor, or increase the noise attenuation as noise travels from the source to the receptor (e.g., through the incorporation of barriers).

Construction Noise – COAs
• The applicant shall ensure that the following preventative and monitoring measures are enforced during grading and building operations:
o Limit construction activity to the hours listed in the City Noise Ordinance. (8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekdays, 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, no construction activity on Sundays and holidays).
o Schedule highest noise-generating activity and construction activity away from noisesensitive land uses. o Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition. o Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. o Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. o Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and available.
o Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints about construction noise by determining the cause of the noise complaints and require implementation of reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. 65 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 27
• The applicant shall notify property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities on site. A schedule of construction activities, and a copy of the noise control plan shall be included with this notice. • Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers, which are maintained in good condition.
• Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment. If the applicant demonstrates that the use of quiet air compressors and other stationary equipment is not feasible, moveable sound barriers or portable sound huts shall be used for noise mitigation.

Construction Vibration COAs
• After obtaining permission from the subject property owners, the applicant shall conduct preconstruction crack photo surveys, and install vibration monitors at the sensitive receptor sites shown in the Vibration Assessment. The applicant shall submit a copy of the crack photo survey and written confirmation from the Project Acoustic Consultant that all required monitors have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the consultant’s specifications, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.

• The applicant shall designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
• Neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the project site shall be noticed of the construction activities and construction schedule (including estimated dates of various construction phases) at least two weeks prior to the start of construction. • Vibration monitors shall be placed at the sensitive receptors to monitor construction activities and make sure the project thresholds are met. Real-time alerts must be sent to the Contractor in case of near threshold vibration levels or in case of threshold exceedances. In case of exceedances, work must stop, and the source of the exceedance must be identified, and the required mitigation measure should be incorporated.
• Building structures near the project shall be checked for cracks and any cracks shall be monitored. Preconstruction crack photo surveys shall be conducted. If minor cracks are reported or existing cracks propagate, vibration project action levels must be restricted. 66 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 28
• Whenever possible, construction or equipment activity generating relatively high levels of vibration shall not occur at the same time and shall be spaced as far apart in time as possible from one another. In general, the most severe activities shall be reserved for the middle of the day (noon). If activities must occur simultaneously, they shall be performed as far away from one-another as possible within the construction zone.
• All deliveries of material and equipment shall occur during daytime hours, including queueing of construction vehicles outside the site. Vehicles delivering materials and equipment shall be operated in strict conformance with regulations established by the United States Department of Transportation and all State and Local requirements. All materials and equipment shall be stored on-site and within the confines of the construction barricades. • Stationary and portable construction equipment shall be located at positions where the noise/vibration impact to nearby noise/vibration-sensitive receptors is minimal. At times where the equipment cannot be positioned at a minimal noise/vibration impacting location, mitigation devices shall be implemented, as determined by the Project Acoustic Consultant or designated Vibration Monitor.
• After construction activities are complete, the applicant shall conduct a post-construction crack photo survey of previously surveyed buildings. The post construction survey, and a summary letter of any resulting actions taken (repairs or restitutions) shall be provided to the Community Development Department, prior to final building permit inspection.

Operational Noise – (project on environment)
The proposed cannabis retail and distribution regulations require that these uses be operated in a fully enclosed building, between the hours of 9:00AM and 9:00PM. Establishment of these new uses would also require approval of a CUP to address potential noise, and to ensure that these projects conform to operation plans that would require customer management (i.e., that security personnel are present to prevent loitering around the project sites, so as to avoid loud conversations that may disturb neighbors). New development projects would also need to conform to all applicable goals and policies and the City’s adopted Noise Ordinance.

Private Airstrips & Airport Noise
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of Belmont, and the proposed development project is not located within areas of excessive noise from either the San Carlos Airport or the San Francisco International Airport. Thus, noise from a private airstrip is not applicable to the project, and no significant impacts are expected with respect to aircraft noise from airports (Impacts 4.10-5 &

4.10-6).
67 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 29
Table 12 – Public Services & Recreation
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.11-1 No No No
Impact 4.11-2 No No No
Impact 4.11-3 No No No
Impact 4.11-4 N/A N/A N/A
Impact 4.11-5 No No No
Public Services & Recreation:

Fire & Police
The General Plan EIR indicates that the buildout of the General Plan/BVSP is not expected to result in significant impacts to Fire and Police service levels, as new development would primarily be concentrated in infill areas already adequately served by both departments; however, the General Plan EIR identifies General Plan and BVSP policies that are intended to reduce the potential Fire and Police service level impacts of individual development projects. These policies generally encourage focusing development in already developed areas where it can be served by existing public services, and allowing sufficient density/intensity to enable development to support all required infrastructure/community facilities. The policies also require Fire and Police Department review of individual development projects to ensure consideration of potential impacts to public safety.

The overlay districts would be located in urbanized parts of the city, which are easily accessible by major streets. Individual development projects would be required to contribute to infrastructure upgrades and street improvements impacted by or in the immediate vicinity of their sites. The Fire and Police Departments will review individual development projects, and have provide appropriate conditions of approval addressing fire mitigation measures, fire flow capacity, evacuation and access provisions for first responders, and design considerations to increase public safety (i.e., project lighting, parking garage security, etc.).

A development proposal submitted under the new regulations would be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure appropriate fire mitigation measures are incorporated. The Police Department would review development proposals for compliance with a City Commercial Cannabis Permit, and state licensing requirements. The Police Department would also review and approve the applicant’s security and operations plans, prior to approval of a CUP to establish the use. The security and operations plans would identify lighting, alarm/surveillance, patron management, and security personnel requirements to ensure safe operation of the business. The Police Department would collect appropriate permit fees to cover the cost of time reviewing Cannabis Use Permits, and for any subsequent inspections, or monitoring of operations. Thus, 68 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 30
impacts to fire and police services from individual development projects would be less than significant (Impact 4.11-1).

Table 13 – Transportation
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.12-1 No No No
Impact 4.12-2 No No No
Impact 4.12-3 No No No
Impact 4.12-4 No No No
Impact 4.12-5 No No No
Impact 4.12-6 No No No
Impact 4.12-7 No No No
Impact 4.12-8 No No No
Impact 4.12-9 No No No
Transportation:

Intersections & Road Segments
General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the General Plan /BVSP would cause intersections and road/highway segments to fall below the established significance criteria for City of Belmont and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) road segments/intersections. The EIR liststhe impacted segments/intersections, and identifies physical improvements (mitigations), such as installation of traffic signals and turning lanes, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; however, the EIR notes that the physical improvements proposed are not always feasible due to right-of-way constraints, and that in many cases the prescribed improvements would conflict with corridor plans, and General Plan, BVSP, and CAP policies related to creating “Complete Streets,” resulting in secondary impacts. As such, the EIR concludes that impacts to the identified segments/intersections would remain potentially “Significant and Unavoidable.” In order to certify the General Plan EIR with Significant and Unavoidable impacts, the City Council made certain findings required by CEQA, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This statement essentially communicated that the City had determined that the potential benefits of the project (General Plan, BVSP, CAP adoption and buildout of the General Plan/BVSP) outweighed its potential impacts. The City Council made the required CEQA Findings and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, prior to approval of the General Plan update and approval of the BVSP Zoning.
69 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 31
The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations does not mean that future development projects need not comply with General Plan/BVSP policies designed to reduce intersection impacts, or that applicants for development projects would not be responsible to address their project-related impacts. General Plan, BVSP and CAP Policies encourage improving multimodal infrastructure, and coordinating land use and circulation in a way that would reduce vehicle trips.

In addition, implementation of the General Plan, BVSP and CAP policies would result in denser and/or more complimentary land uses and the development of complete streets that would either shorten or reduce the number of vehicle trips. The MMRP adopted with the General Plan EIR also contains mitigation measures that would reduce project impacts by requiring that project applicants contribute proportionate share of payments towards intersection/segment improvements, and/or pay a traffic impact fee.

State Law & Traffic Metrics
Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” To that end, the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted changes to the CEQA guidelines in December 2018 specifying vehicle miles traveled (VMT)1 as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The California Natural Resources Agency subsequently certified adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, as automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” (LOS) 2 and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099 (b)(3)).

While local agencies are required to adopt and utilize a VMT threshold for CEQA transportation analysis by July 1, 2020, they may still require LOS for local planning and/or general plan compliance purposes. The current General Plan EIR Transportation Section uses LOS as a metric 1 VMT is a measurement of the amount of travel for all vehicles in a defined area, such as within the City boundaries, within San Mateo County or within the Bay Area region. It represents the total number of vehicle trips multiplied by the total distance each vehicle travels. VMT can also be used as an efficiency metric, “VMT per capita” or “VMT per employee,” to encourage development in travel-efficient locations (e.g., locations in proximity to key destinations, services, and transit service). Mitigation measures for VMT impacts typically would include implementing transportation demand management (TDM) measures and strategies to encourage low-emission, multimodal transportation.
2 The LOS metric assigns a letter grade (A to F) related to the delay per vehicle for an intersection or roadway segment.

LOS A represents free flowing conditions and little to no delay to vehicles while LOS F represents congested conditions with higher delays and long queues for vehicles. LOS analysis and mitigation measures are different from VMT in that they would typically support strategies that encourage faster automobile travel times, reduce peak commute time congestion, implement roadway widening and other infrastructure or strategies that could encourage travel by single-occupant vehicles; however, LOS is a useful metric for determining a project’s potential circulation impacts, as it can be used to identify when an intersection with stop signs should be replaced with a traffic signal, when a new turn lane is needed, and when queuing may exceed a turn pocket length. 70 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 32
for evaluating potential impacts. In addition, a project that is not expected to create significant VMT impacts could still have LOS operational impacts. Thus, it is possible that a CEQA analysis evaluating VMT may not be required, but an operational analysis to identify intersection impacts will be needed.

On February 23, 2021, the City Council adopted new VMT Policies; however, there is still the potential for individual development project to have significant project-level transportation impacts to adjacent roadways and intersections (per the Cities TIA guidelines, General Plan Circulation Element Policies). As such, the Public Works Department has determined that it is necessary to use both VMT and LOS metrics for review of project transportation impacts for development projects.

Depending on the scope and location, individual development projects would be required to submit Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) as part of development review. These reports would be peer reviewed by consultants and the Public Works Department to ensure potential transportation impacts are appropriately mitigated; however, it should be noted that the S-3 Overlay for retail cannabis uses would be located in areas along Ralston Avenue and El Camino Real, which are in walking distance from the Belmont Caltrain Station, and SamTrans Bus stops.

Depending on the scope of the projects, new development applications would also be required to provide public improvements along all street frontages (i.e., wide sidewalks, and street trees) that are consistent with adopted Complete Streets policies to promote the development of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and increase use of these facilities. In addition, project applicants would need to contribute fair-share portion fees for the construction of road improvements, based on project impacts to roadway intersections and segments, and include TDM plans to discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles. Thus, the overall transportation impacts of future development projects for the Cannabis Regulations would be expected to be less than significant (Impacts 4.12-1 through 4.12-5).

Conflict with Plans
The General Plan, BVSP, and CAP contain numerous policies that promote higher density, transitoriented, mixed-use development, and the implementation of adopted Complete Streets standards.

Individual development projects would be located in the BVSP, PDA, and East of Highway 101 Areas, and retail cannabis uses would be located in close proximity to public transit (the Belmont Caltrain Station and SamTrans Bus routes). In addition, depending on the scope of the project, individual development projects would include street improvements consistent with adopted Complete Streets Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with programs that promote the development of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and increase use of these facilities. No impacts related to conflict with adopted plans would result from the project (Impact 4.12-4, Impact 4.12-5 & Impact 4.12-7).

Operations Impacts to Airports
The General Plan EIR indicates that policies of the General Plan/BVSP would not modify planning or operations at airports, or introduce land use patterns that would cause substantial risks to or from airports. The project would be consistent with General Plan/BVSP policies related to airports 71 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 33
and would not conflict with an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC). Therefore, no impacts to airport operations would result from the development project (Impact 4.12-6).

Hazardous Design Features
The General Plan EIR indicates that future improvements to the transportation and circulation system related to buildout of the General Plan/BVSP would be constructed to all local, regional and federal standards, and thus would not result in any hazardous design features. Depending on project scope, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for individual development projects and peer reviewed by a consultant working for the City, in consultation with the Department of Public Works. Issues related to site traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle safety, safety evaluation of the street improvements (line of Sight), and the internal circulation of any proposed parking garage and driveway areas would be conducted as part of this review. The report and peer review would need to conclude that the proposed improvements would not result in hazardous design features for the Department of Public Works to recommend approval of the project (Impact 4.12-8).

Emergency Access
The General Plan EIR indicates that buildout of the General Plan/BVSP could potentially result in increased congestion that would impact emergency vehicles response times. The potential impacts to response times could not be accurately quantified, so the impacts were considered Significant and Unavoidable. The EIR explains that the precise impacts of buildout are difficult to quantify, because response times differ during the time of day, and can change based on the number of emergency calls, and the use of sirens or traffic signal preemption equipment.

The General Plan EIR indicates that the use of signal priority preemption equipment and strict adherence to emergency vehicle passing priority under state law would reduce impacts on emergency response times. In addition, the EIR states that future modifications implementing Complete Streets standards would reduce vehicle speeds through core areas, which would likely reduce the severity of accidents. The EIR notes that impacts would also be reduced through entitlement review, and public safety officials would continue to review development project plans to ensure that they are compliant with emergency access requirements.

Individual development projects would be required to construct frontage improvements consistent with the City’s adopted Complete Streets standards, and applicants would be required to contribute a fair-share portion fees for the construction of road improvements, based on project impacts to roadway intersections and segments. The projects will also be reviewed by all appropriate safety personnel to ensure that project plans are compliant with emergency access requirements. As such, development project-related impacts to emergency access are less than significant (Impact 4.12- 9).
72 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 34
Table 14 – Utilities
Impact Area &
Corresponding
Policies
identified in
Table ES-3
(Attachment 1)
The development
project has new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New circumstances
involve new or
substantially more
severe significant
impacts?
New information related
to: new or more severe
impacts, or previously
infeasible or more
effective mitigations that
are not agreed to by the
applicant?
Impact 4.12-1 No No No
Impact 4.12-2 No No No
Impact 4.12-3 No No No
Impact 4.12-4 No No No
Impact 4.12-5 No No No
Impact 4.12-6 No No No
Impact 4.12-7 No No No
Utilities:

Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Wastewater from Belmont is predominantly treated at the Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) treatment plant, which is located in Redwood Shores near the eastern side of Belmont. Treated wastewater from SVCW is released into the San Francisco Bay. The SVCW plant currently complies with all Clean Water Act (CWA), State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), and National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and standards. The buildout of the General Plan/BVSP would result in increased wastewater for treatment; however, the General Plan EIR indicates that impacts would be less than significant as current regulations require compliance with federal and state water quality standards, and these measures would preclude development lacking adequate utility (wastewater treatment plant) capacity.

In addition, the EIR references General Plan/BVSP policies that require: 1) making improvements and upgrades to the wastewater system, consistent with the City’s Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Analysis and the Silicon Valley Clean Water Conveyance System Master Plan; 2) updating impact fees, connection fees, and service charges to ensure adequate funds are collected to operate/maintain existing treatment facilities and construct new facilities; and 3) collecting impact fees from new development projects to ensure that new waste water facilities are constructed to meet performance standards, and to allow for future maintenance.

Unlike residential projects and large scale commercial buildings, retail sales and distribution uses are not significant generators of waste water. The City has adequate wastewater treatment capacity available for these projects, and conditions of project approval would require the applicant to pay sewer impact fees. As a result of compliance with existing regulations, implementation of General Plan /BVSP policies, and the payment of impact fees by the applicant, the potential impacts to wastewater treatment would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-1). 73 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 35
New Facilities/Supply – Water
Water supply in Belmont is provided by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD). In accordance with state law, MPWD prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2015. Urban Water Management Plans are prepared by urban water suppliers every 5 years. These plans support the suppliers’ long-term (20-year) resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs. MPWD’s 2015 UWMP indicates that water supply is sufficient to meet current and projected demands in Belmont.

In analyzing water needs, the General Plan EIR references MPWD’s 2015 UWMP. The EIR indicates that water demand is expected to increase through the horizon year of the General Plan as population and job growth occur, but that per capita water use is gradually expected to trend downward because of conservation efforts. The EIR concludes that water supply is sufficient to meet current and projected demands outside of the BVSP Area, provided that water conservation efforts and strategies are continued (i.e., prioritization of high-density infill development, rebates for water efficient appliances, water efficient landscaping, adherence to state green building code - CALGreen, etc.).

The EIR concludes that water supply would be sufficient to meet current and projected demands inside of the BVSP Area, subject to the strategies and policies identified in the General Plan, CAP, and BVSP, and with Mitigation Measure (MM) UTIL-1 (below), which requires the upgrading of specific 6-inch water lines to 8-inch water lines over time as development intensification within the BVSP Area occurs. MM UTIL-1 requires that project applicants secure verification that water service can be provided (i.e., obtain an “Intent to Serve” letter from MPWD).

Number Mitigation Measure
UTIL-1 Require water line upsizing. As development intensification occurs throughout the BVSP Area, upgrades from 6-inch to 8-inch water lines will be required as necessary. The existing water lines in the BVSP Area are displayed in Figure 4.13-2, and planned improvements are displayed in Figure 4.13-3. Lines that are anticipated to need upgrades include the 6-inch lines along Old County Road between Masonic Way and Harbor Boulevard, along Ralston Avenue between Old County Road and Elmer Street, along Sixth Avenue between Hill Street and O’Neill Avenue, and along O’Neill Avenue between Sixth Avenue and El Camino Real.

The physical improvements will be subject to project- level environmental review as needed.

As projects are built in accordance with the BVSP, Belmont Public Works in conjunction with Mid-Peninsula Water District is required to monitor system capacity and construct necessary upgrades.

There would be no large-scale farming or growing operations as part of the new regulations for cannabis. Retail cannabis sales and distribution would not be expected to use large quantities of water. Individual development projects would be required to include a drought-tolerant landscape plan in accordance with the current MPWD water efficiency in landscape ordinance (WELO).

Project applicants would also need to secure an Intent to Serve letter from MPWD, and projects would be required to be meet all applicable CALGreen standards at the time of building permit 74 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 36
issuance. Subject to these measures and implementation of MM UTIL-1, project-specific impacts would be less than significant (Impacts 4.13-2 & 4.13-4).

New Facilities & Capacity - Wastewater
The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of the proposed General Plan /BVSP would result in future residential, commercial, office, and industrial uses in Belmont, resulting in additional population that would generate additional wastewater. Therefore, wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment services would increase over current levels. The EIR notes that the Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) treatment plant would have adequate capacity to treat wastewater, but system improvements would be needed to mitigate potential impacts. Specifically, pipe segments downstream of the BVSP Area (MM UTIL-2), and the Shoreway Pump Station (MM UTIL-3) would need to be upsized to address increased wastewater. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts for the buildout of the General Plan/BVSP:

Number Mitigation Measure
UTIL-2 Require sewer line upsizing. As development intensification occurs throughout the BVSP Area, approximately 1,675 feet of sewer lines downstream of the BVSP Area will be required to be upsized as a direct result of growth in the BVSP Area. The existing sewer lines in the BVSP Area are displayed in Figure 4.13-5, and planned improvements are displayed in Figure

4.13-6. Lines that are anticipated to need upgrades lie along Masonic Way and Hiller Street.

UTIL-3 Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump Station. As development intensification occurs throughout the BVSP Area, the Shoreway Pump Station will be required to be upsized as a direct result of growth in the BVSP Area.

Ongoing study and monitoring of the BVSP Area sewer infrastructure will be performed by the Public Works Department and Silicon Valley Clean Water. Applicants for development projects are required to secure verification that sewer service can be provided, and pay appropriate fees to ensure that new wastewater facilities are constructed to meet performance standards, and to allow for future maintenance. As projects are built in accordance with the BVSP, Belmont Public Works in conjunction with Silicon Valley Clean Water is responsible to monitor system capacity and construct necessary upgrades to the sewer lines and the Shoreway Pump Station over time consistent with the City’s Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Analysis and the Silicon Valley Clean Water Conveyance System Master Plan.

Unlike residential projects and large scale commercial buildings, retail sales and distribution uses are not significant generators of waste water. The City’s standard process include the submittal of sanitary sewer evaluations for individual development projects. The evaluations determine the potential impacts of the project, and provide mitigation measures to ensure that significant impacts (i.e., system deficiencies that result in release of untreated waters) would not occur. Fair share contributions would be required of individual development projects to address the future needs of the system. Subject to the implementation of this standard City process, project specific impacts would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-2 & 4.13-5). 75 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 37
Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater Volume & Capacities
The General Plan EIR indicates that new development under the General Plan/BVSP would allow for the redevelopment of existing developed areas that would generate increased stormwater volumes in portions of Belmont. Increased flows would in turn create a need for new infrastructure in growth areas, to accommodate infiltration of stormwater or to convey stormwater to detention basins to prevent flooding. Construction of new stormwater infrastructure could in and of itself have adverse effects on the physical environment; however, the required improvements would occur within rights-of-way and other already disturbed areas within previously developed areas.

In addition, the BVSP includes policies and guidelines that reduce the need for construction of stormwater drainage facilities. BVSP design guidelines encourage directing stormwater runoff to natural vegetated systems that reduce, filter, or slow the runoff before it makes its way into the storm drainage system. BVSP Policy 5.1-3 ensures that development projects comply with the NPDES Permit requirements, Policy 5.1-5 designs new streetscape and landscaped areas for stormwater management and the efficient use and conservation of water, and Policy 5.1-7 requires development to include low impact development (LID) features to reduce stormwater pollutant loads and increase onsite infiltration.

The sale and distribution of cannabis products from existing facilities would not alter existing drainage patterns or impact stormwater facilities. New construction for individual development projects would require that the applicant submit drainage studies and C-3/C-6 checklists for review by the Public Works Department. These studies and checklists would need to demonstrate that the applicant has implemented LID features to reduce stormwater pollutant loads and increase onsite infiltration to avoid and minimize impacts. Final review of stormwater treatment occurs during the building permit process, and stormwater facilities are required to be maintained per the standard stormwater condition of approval below.

Stormwater Volume – COAs
• The Property Owner shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the municipality to ensure long‐term maintenance and servicing by the Property Owner of stormwater site design and treatment control [and/or Hydro Modification] measures according the approved Maintenance Plan(s). The Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded for the property.

Thus, individual development projects, as proposed and conditioned, would comply with NPDES permit requirements, and all relevant General Plan/BVSP Policies designed to reduce stormwater impacts. These projects would be required to implement Urban Design guidelines for Low Impact Development (as applicable), and would convey stormwater to detention basins to prevent flooding. As a result of implementation of the policies and zoning regulations of the BVSP, as well as the General Plan, CAP, and other existing regulations, the impact of these proposed projects would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-3).
76 CEQA ADDENDUM – GENERAL PLAN EIR
Cannabis Regulations Project – Page 38
Solid Waste
The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of the General Plan/BVSP would result in additional population and increased solid waste generation within the city. AB 939 requires local governments to divert 50 percent of their community’s solid waste, and the recent goal that has been set by CalRecycle of 75 percent recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid waste by 2020. These disposal targets for Belmont were met for both residential and employment disposal for the years 2013-2015.

Given the city’s ability to meet its diversion targets, as well as the remaining capacity in area landfills, meeting the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal needs of the projected population anticipated in the General Plan/BVSP is not expected to exceed existing permitted solid waste disposal capacity. In addition, the General Plan/BVSP and CAP contain policies for new development that require participation in all recycling, hazardous waste reduction, and solid waste diversion programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.

The City requires that applicants for new development projects submit plans and materials that provide details for collecting trash, compost, and recycling. The City’s trash and recycling hauler review the plans and determined the appropriate levels service for the project. The hauler also verifies compliance with the plan and state law requirements for recycling and composting. Thus, with implementation of the policies and zoning regulations of the BVSP, as well as the General Plan, CAP, and other existing regulations (state law), the impacts of individual development projects would be less than significant (Impact 4.13-6 & Impact 4.13-7).

Determination
None of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or negative declaration have occurred: 1) the potential development associated with the Cannabis Overlay Districts for retail sales and distribution of cannabis products is within the buildout of the EIR, and thus no substantial changes are required to the EIR analysis; 2) the environmental setting of the Project Area and the relevant land use regulations adopted remain generally unchanged since the Original Project was approved in November 2017. In addition, there has been no large-scale commercial development approved in the BVSP Area or the City at large, and the circumstances under which the General Plan EIR was adopted have not changed; and 3) there is no new information that was not known at the time the impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and individual development projects undertaken within the overlay districts would not result in any significant impacts not considered under the original EIR. Therefore, as provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendum is the appropriate documentation to address the changes, if any, made by the Project.
77 EXHIBIT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 6
78 79
•••••••••••••••••••
80 ••••
81 82
83 84
•••••
85 86
87 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
88 ••••••••••••
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2017

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING ALL FINDINGS REQUIRED

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),

INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, FOR THE BELMONT 2035 GENERAL PLAN (GP) UPDATE, PHASE 1/INTERIM ZONING,

BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (BVSP) & BELMONT VILLAGE ZONING (BVZ), AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA
WHEREAS, in July 2014, the City Council of the City of Belmont approved a program and process, and secured Consulting Services with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners, for the 2035 General Plan (GP) Update Project and its subsequent policy documents including the Phase 1/Interim Zoning, and Climate Action Plan (CAP); and, WHEREAS, in April 2015, the City Council of the City of Belmont, through a competitive process, secured Consulting Services with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners, for preparation of the Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) and the Belmont Village Zoning (BVZ); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont (“City”) determined that the Project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code section 21000 et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, under CEQA Section 15168, the City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project, potential alternatives to the Project and recommended mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, during the preparation of the 2035 General Plan, associated policy documents, and EIR, comments and participation was sought from the public and interested and affected groups and agencies including City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the California Air Resources Board, the County of San Mateo, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, City of Redwood City, all school districts, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California and a number of other agencies, individuals and experts; and,
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation regarding the EIR and seeking public agency review and comment on September 1, 2016 for the period September 1, 2016 through October 3, 2016, and held a scoping meeting on September 6, 2016 before the Planning Commission to receive comments on topics and issues that should be evaluated in the Draft EIR; and,
EXHIBIT 2 TO ATTACHMENT 6
136
2 WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared in June 2017 and included an assessment of potential environmental effects, a description of possible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and consideration of whether any alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental effects of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for the Draft EIR for the Project in the Redwood City Examiner/Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the County of San Mateo, for the Draft EIR review period commencing on June 30, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2016082075) on June 30, 2017 to begin a 50 day review and comment period ending August 18, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City also distributed the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for State Agency review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on August 15, 2017 to receive public comments on the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, a letter dated August 21, 2017 was received from the State Clearinghouse on the Draft EIR and indicating distribution to the following Reviewing Agencies: Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Cal Fire; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Division of Aeronautics; Office of Historic Preservation; Office of Emergency Services, California; California Highway Patrol; Department of Housing and Community Development; Caltrans, District 4; Public Utilities Commission; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission and including written comments from the following agencies: Caltrans, District 4, and California Highway Patrol; and,
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public review period of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR (“FEIR”) was prepared which includes responses to comments on the Draft EIR and revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments resulting from the public process and as a result of editorial review; and,
WHEREAS, CEQA requires analysis and a determination regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and mitigation measures that, in the City’s view, justify approval of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and,
WHEREAS, duly and properly noticed public hearings were held before the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2017 and October 17, 2017; and, 137
3 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council to make all findings required under CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and certify the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on October 24, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, the City Council having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to certify the FEIR in accordance with CEQA under Resolution 2017-076; and, WHEREAS, no events that would require subsequent environmental review as described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred since the City of Belmont City Council certified the FEIR, in that no substantial changes have been made in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is being approved, and no new information of substantial importance has become known; and, WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on November 14, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to make all findings required under CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as more fully set forth in this Resolution as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:

1. It has independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including, without limitation, all written comments received on the Project and its environmental review, whether during or outside of the public comment periods, and all oral comments received at the public meetings and public hearings on the Project and its various environmental documents, and certifies that the FEIR has been completed in conformance with CEQA, that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, and that the FEIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City as lead agency; and,

2. It makes all findings required under CEQA with respect to the Project’s environmental effects as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and,

3. For impacts that cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant, it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution finding that specific social, economic, or other factors justify the Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects; and,
138
4 4. It adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution to ensure that the identified mitigation measures or Project changes are implemented; and,

5. As more particularly set forth in Exhibit A, it finds that no subsequent environmental review is required, because substantial evidence shows that none of the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review listed in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred since the City Council certified the FEIR on October 24, 2017, and,

6. It directs staff to file a Notice of Determination under CEQA Guidelines 15094 within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution; and,

7. By this reference, Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this Resolution are incorporated as though fully set forth in the body of this Resolution.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADOPTED November 14, 2017, by the City Council of the City of Belmont by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
139
1 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations

EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION 2017-________

CITY OF BELMONT

FINDINGS OF FACT

AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE:
2035 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE,

PHASE I ZONING,

BELMONT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN,

BELMONT VILLAGE ZONING, AND

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
I. Introduction
The City of Belmont (the "City"), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016082075, the "EIR") for the 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan (together, the "Project"). The EIR is a program-level EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines1 Section 15168 and consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report released on June 30, 2017 (the "Draft EIR"), Appendices A through E of the Draft EIR, and the Final Environmental Impact Report released on September 28, 2017 (the "Final EIR"). The EIR addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the Project.
a. Project Description
As fully described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes: (1) the 2035 General Plan Update, which provides the framework for land use and development in the City, prioritizing the preservation of open space and directing most new development to infill sites and identified opportunity sites; (2) the Phase 1 Zoning, which provides a regulatory framework that ensures that any new development, occurring prior to a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, is consistent with proposed General Plan policies and land use designations; (3) the Belmont Village Specific Plan, which introduces new mixed-use districts in the downtown area that support a variety of land uses, including residential, employment, service, and entertainment uses and includes detailed zoning, permitted uses, form-based codes, and development standards for the downtown area; and (4) the Climate Action Plan, which addresses the community's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through quantified reduction strategies, performance standards, and a framework for implementation to achieve the required reduction.

1 The "CEQA Guidelines" are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. 140
2 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Purpose of the Findings
The purpose of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (the "Findings") that follow is to satisfy CEQA's requirements as set forth Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and Sections 15091, 15092, 15093 and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines associated with approval of the Project. These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council (the "City Council") of the City regarding the Project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, and the overriding considerations, which, in the City Council's judgment, justify approval of the Project despite its environmental effects. The Findings are divided into general sections. Each of these sections is further divided into subsections, each of which addresses a particular impact topic and/or requirement of law.

II. Project Objectives
Broadly, the Project is proposed to update the City's General Plan to meet the City's needs through 2035 and the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302, adopt a specific plan that meets the requirements of California Government Code Section 65451, adopt a Climate Action Plan to allow streamlined CEQA review of GHG emissions for future projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and adopt zoning designations to implement the 2035 General Plan Update and the Belmont Village Specific Plan. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project's specific objectives are as follows.
a. General Plan Objectives
i. Land Use Planning
 Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the city, to enable people to live close to job locations, adequate and convenient commercial services, and public services and facilities such as transit, parks, and schools.
 Support the creation and enhancement of "complete neighborhoods" in Belmont, with wellintegrated single-family and multi-family residential development, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environments, and activity nodes featuring schools, parks, and neighborhood commercial areas.
 Provide balanced neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse demographic, economic, and social needs of residents, while ensuring a cohesive urban form and regard for compatibility with surrounding uses and existing residential development.
 Preserve the character and enhance the quality of Belmont's residential neighborhoods.  Enhance the Belmont Village PDA and develop a distinct identify for the area as Belmont's vibrant town center for residents and visitors with commercial, residential, dining, civic, cultural, and entertainment activities.
 Promote opportunities for continued economic growth and vitality, resulting in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents, increased local employment opportunities, enhanced attractions for visitors, increased sales tax revenues, and a stronger community image.
 Provide areas for diverse employment and business opportunities to promote diversity in Belmont's economic base.
141
3 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses.
 Foster new development that contributes positively to Belmont's built environment, provides benefits to the local community, and addresses potential impacts.  Ensure adequate provision of community-serving facilities such as recreation facilities, child daycare facilities, places of worship, schools and other educational institutions, and schools to serve current and future residents.
 Continue to collaborate and partner with Notre Dame de Namur University.  Support a balanced and integrated parks and open space system that links neighborhoods, provides outdoor recreation opportunities, promotes natural resource conservation, and serves multiple needs.
 Enhance Belmont's character and image as a desirable community with distinct visual qualities, small-town character, and connections to nature and open space.  Protect and enhance Belmont's hillside areas.
 Grow and develop in such a way that allows Belmont's unique character to flourish while recognizing the city's role in the broader region.
ii. Economic Opportunity
 Support a wide range of economic activity in Belmont that capitalizes on the city's location, strengthens the City's tax base, and ensures that Belmont has adequate fiscal resources to fund high quality public services for its residents and businesses.  Facilitate retention, expansion, attraction, and incubation of businesses in Belmont that will employ and serve Belmont residents and meet the city's economic development objectives.  Realize the community's vision for Belmont Village PDA as a vibrant, successful, engaging town center, with opportunities for residents to live, shop, work, and play.  Transform El Camino Real into a "grand boulevard" with a vibrant mix of land uses, a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and enhanced transit and bicycle facilities.  Pursue annexation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) and bring it into the Belmont city limits.
 Promote the continued development and revitalization of the Belmont's focus areas for economic growth as integral parts of the community and nodes of commercial, employment, or residential activity.
iii. Historic Preservation
 Conserve designated historic and cultural sites and structures that help define Belmont's identity and character.
iv. Circulation
 Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles within and through the community that fosters accessibility and connectivity; accommodates a mixture of automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and encourages higher transit ridership.  Reduce dependence on the automobile for travel and achieve a reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per capita of 15 percent by year 2035.
142
4 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  Work cooperatively with other agencies and jurisdictions in the region to enhance connectivity between Belmont and the region and provide an efficient system for regional travel.
 Accommodate modes of transportation on routes that are designed within the context of the surrounding area to provide for the enjoyment and safety of the individual and to cause minimum interference and appropriate compatibility with adjacent uses of land.  Promote, provide, and maintain a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle system of hiking and riding trails, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and lanes to: promote active transportation; reduce dependence on automobiles; provide recreation; furnish easy access to trails; permit safe, pleasant travel among parts of the community; connect local areas and destinations within the city through trails and paths and regional trail and path systems; and create opportunities for nature and conservation education.  Promote Transportation Demand Management Programs and encourage increased transit use through convenient, safe, efficient, and cost-effective services.  Maintain and improve existing bus service in Belmont to provide transportation to commuter trains, local schools, and recreational facilities.  Provide a balanced and well-managed parking supply that accommodates demand while maximizing efficiency.
 Limit truck and other heavy traffic to the level necessary to reasonably serve local business and industry while minimizing disruptive effects on residents, businesses, and the functional organization of the community.
 Fund transportation improvement projects through the use of City funds, development fees, and grants.
v. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
 Provide an expanded, high quality, and diversified park system that serves the entire Belmont community, enhances community identity, and is conveniently located for community use.
 Ensure that a wide variety of public community and recreation facilities are available to the entire Belmont community for recreational, social, and cultural activities.  Improve the quantity and quality of recreational programming and services to provide varied recreational opportunities for the entire Belmont community.  Continue to develop and support a balanced and integrated open space system reflecting a variety of considerations, including natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety, to ensure synergies between various open space components and compatibility with land use planning.
 Preserve and protect open space resources using various methods available to the City.  Improve and increase public access into open space areas where feasible and safe.  Pursue sufficient and dedicated funding for acquisition, operations, protection, maintenance, and management of parks, recreation facilities, and natural open spaces and to meet the recreational programming and service needs of the Belmont Community. vi. Open Space for Natural Resource Conservation
 Protect and maintain open space for the preservation of natural resources. 143
5 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  Protect and preserve open space for public health, safety and recreation in areas that require special management for regulation.
vii. Biological Resources
 Protect and restore biological and ecological resources in Belmont, including sensitive wildlife species and their habitats.
viii. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Water Supply and Demand  Preserve and restore Belmont's waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources that serve as plant and wildlife habitats, groundwater recharge facilities, flood control and irrigation components, and connections between open space areas.  Preserve water quality by promoting the protection of Belmont's creeks and other natural water bodies from pollution.
 Preserve water resources and provide for long-range community water needs by adopting best management practices for water use and conservation. ix. Wastewater, Solid Waste, and Stormwater
 Provide adequate wastewater collection, treatment, recycling and disposal facilities in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs.
 Provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.
 Maintain and improve the reliability of the City's storm drainage system, and promote best management practices to protect this system from flooding, enhance water quality, and prevent infrastructure deterioration.
x. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
 Reduce emissions of ozone-producing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of Belmont and Bay Area residents.  Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 15 percent below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2005 baseline levels by 2035. xi. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
 Preserve and protect areas and sites of prehistoric, cultural, and archaeological significance.
xii. Safety
 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
 Protect the community from risks to life and property posed by flooding.  Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.
144
6 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  Continue to promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education and awareness.  Ensure that utilities that are essential to contemporary life are available and adequate to meet the demands of the Belmont community while also ensuring the utilities maintain and enhance Belmont's physical diversity, visual qualities, and small-town characteristics.  Protect Belmont residents and businesses from potential fire hazards.  Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.  Provide a comprehensive program of safety services including police, fire, and medical response in Belmont.
 Support continuing public awareness of hazards, including avoidance, disaster preparedness, and emergency response procedures.
 Make infrastructure investments, enforce regulations, and disseminate information that will improve disaster response and recovery, with the goal of minimizing damage to people and property.
xiii. Noise
 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the environmental, health, and safety needs of present and future residents of Belmont.
 Protect noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise.  Continue to work with other agencies, airports, and jurisdictions to reduce noise levels in Belmont created by their operations.
b. BVSP Objectives
i. Land Use
 Create a vibrant downtown that serves as the City's shopping, employment, activity, and community center, with a compact, walkable, pedestrian-scaled development that is connected to transit.
 Preserve and enhance the Village's cultural and historic context.  Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate different types of households, different income levels, different age groups, and different lifestyles. ii. Mobility
 Provide a vibrant, safe, and connected street network that facilitates multimodal movement of people within and to the Village Planning Area and ensures the citywide goal of reducing vehicle-miles travelled per capita by 15 percent.
 Provide safe and convenient access to transit.
 Meet citywide goals of reducing automobile trips through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies.
 Provide parking that meets the needs of Belmont Village to ensure its vibrancy and economic vitality, while encouraging walking, cycling, and transit ridership as the primary modes of access to and within the Village Planning Area. 145
7 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations iii. Infrastructure and Public Services
 Continue the successful provision, maintenance, and operation of water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure utilities in Belmont to maintain the quality of life and accommodate future growth in the Village.
 Continue to provide adequate solid waste services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.
 Continue the successful provision, maintenance, and operation of infrastructure and public utilities to maintain the quality of life and serve the Village Planning Area.  Maintain Belmont as a safe and livable community.
 Ensure that new development adequately addresses public safety considerations in building design and site planning.
 Promote adequate and accessible public school facilities for the Village Planning Area.  Foster positive relationships between the Belmont Village and Notre Dame de Namur University communities.
 Provide a diverse range of parks, recreation, and community facilities and programming inside and within a ten-minute walk of the Village Planning Area. iv. Environmental Sustainability, Health, and Safety
 Preserve natural environmental processes that protect health and safety, such as water filtration through soil that protects water quality and riparian vegetation that minimizes erosion and flooding.
 Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social disruption resulting from natural and man-made hazards, including floods.  Protect and improve the quality of biological resources and habitat areas in the Village Planning Area.
 Ensure that infill development projects minimize exposure to hazardous materials and toxic air contaminants.
 Maintain a healthy noise environment in the Village Planning Area while accommodating the increased intensities and mix of uses intended to characterize Belmont Village in the future.
c. CAP Objectives
 Increase municipal, residential, and commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy, efficient water use, and green building.
 Reduce emissions from transportation through efficient land use, alternate modes of transportation, and operational innovations.
 Reduce solid waste generated and sent to landfills.

III. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City is the Lead Agency for the Project.

Accordingly, the City has taken the following actions in relation to the EIR to satisfy CEQA:
146
8 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  The City sent the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR to the State Clearinghouse and to state, local, and regional agencies on September 1, 2016. A public scoping meeting was held on September 6, 2016 to solicit additional input on the scope of the EIR. The City accepted written comments on the scope of the EIR until October 3, 2016, and concerns raised in response to the NOP and the September 6, 2016 hearing were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The written comments that the City received in response to the NOP are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
 On June 30, 2017, the City published a Notice of Availability ("NOA") for the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR was concurrently submitted to the Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse (the "State Clearinghouse") and circulated for public review and comment as well as to solicit comments from agencies and individuals on the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR. The City distributed copies of the Draft EIR to state agencies, local governments, elected officials, groups, and interested parties on the City's mailing list (the "Noticed Parties"). The Draft EIR, along with the proposed 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan were made available through three (3) websites maintained by the City:
www.belmont-2035generalplan.com
www.planbelmontvillage.com
www.belmont.gov/ClimateActionPlan
 The Draft EIR was also made available for public review in printed form at the public counter of the Community Development Department-Permit Center at Belmont City Hall and at the Belmont Public Library throughout the public comment period.  The Draft EIR's public review period encompassed 50 days between June 30, 2017 and August 18, 2017. The City's Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on August 15, 2017, during the public review period. The City encouraged the public to provide oral comments at the hearings and submit written comments. The City transcribed all oral comments on the Draft EIR. Copies of all written comments and transcriptions of oral comments received during the public comment period are included in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR.  On September 28, 2017, the City released the Final EIR. All comments received on the Draft EIR during the public comment period were responded to and included in the Final EIR. Collectively the Final EIR and the Draft EIR as amended by the Final EIR constitute the EIR for the Project.
 On October 2, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on certain components of the Project (the proposed 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, and Climate Action Plan), and the Final EIR. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the proposed 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, and Climate Action Plan. 147
9 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  On October 17, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on certain components of the Project (the Belmont Village Specific Plan and the BVSP Zoning). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the proposed the Belmont Village Specific Plan and the BVSP Zoning.  On October 24, 2017, the City Council certified the EIR following a duly and properly noticed public hearing.
 The 2035 General Plan Update, Phase I Zoning, and Climate Action Plan and the EIR came before the City Council on November 14, 2017 at a duly and properly noticed public hearing, and the City Council approved the Project and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the Findings.

For purposes of CEQA and the analysis set forth in these Findings, the record of proceedings (the "Administrative Record") consists of the following documents and testimony, and at a minimum:
 The NOP, comments received on the NOP, the NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project or the EIR;
 The EIR, including the Final EIR issued on September 28, 2017 and the Draft EIR as amended by the Final EIR, including all technical materials cited in the document;  The MMRP and all appendices to the Draft and Final EIR;  All non-draft and non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and its consultants in relation to the Project and the EIR;
 Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings or scoping meetings held by the Planning Commission and the City Council;
 Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the Project or the EIR;
 All of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing between, as well as accompanying technical memoranda or evidence entered into the record;
 Matters of common knowledge to the City Council which they consider, such as the City's existing General Plan, any other applicable specific plans or other similar plans, and the City's Municipal Code; and,
 Any other category of material identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 prepared in connection with Project or the EIR.
148
10 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations The Community Development Department is designated as the custodian of the documents and record of proceedings on which this decision is based. The Community Development Department office is located at Belmont City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Suite 310, Belmont, California, 94002, and the telephone number is (650) 595-7417.

IV. Findings are Determinative
The City Council certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the City Council prior to acting on the Project.

In so certifying, the City Council recognizes that there may be differences in and among the different sources of information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the EIR and the Administrative Record; that experts disagree; and that the City Council must base its decision and these Findings on the substantial evidence in the record that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these Findings, the City Council ratifies, clarifies, and/or makes insignificant modifications to the EIR and resolves that these Findings shall control and are determinative of the significant impacts of the Project.

The mitigation measures proposed in the EIR and further described in Section V of these Findings are adopted in these Findings, substantially in the form proposed in the EIR, with such clarifications and non-substantive modifications as the City Council has deemed appropriate to implement the mitigation measures, if any. Further, the mitigation measures adopted in these Findings are expressly incorporated into the Project.

The analysis and determinations in these Findings are to be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of these Findings fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these Findings, that any finding or determination required or permitted to be made shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document. All of the text included in this document constitutes findings and determinations, whether or not any particular caption sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.

Each finding in these Findings is based on the entire record. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact.

Many of the mitigation measures imposed or adopted pursuant to these Findings to mitigate the environmental impacts identified in the Administrative Record may have the effect of mitigating multiple impacts (e.g., conditions imposed primarily to mitigate traffic impacts may also secondarily mitigate air quality impacts, etc.). The City Council has not attempted to exhaustively cross-reference all potential impacts mitigated by the imposition of a particular mitigation measure; however, such failure to cross-reference shall not be construed as a limitation on the potential scope or effect of any such mitigation measure.

V. Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Findings
In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, this section of the Findings lists each significant environmental effect of the Project identified in the EIR; describes those mitigation measures recommended in the EIR; and, as required by Section 15091(a), finds that either: (i) the adopted mitigation measures have substantially lessened the significant effect; (ii) the adopted 149
11 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations mitigation measures, though implemented, do not substantially lessen the significant effect; (iii) the mitigation measures cannot be adopted and implemented because they are the responsibility of another public agency; or (iv) that specific considerations make mitigation measures infeasible.

All feasible mitigation measures listed below have been incorporated into the MMRP, further described in Section IX of these Findings. Any future projects approved or constructed pursuant to the Project will incorporate all conditions contained in the MMRP.

Unless otherwise noted, all page numbers shown below refer to the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR.
a. Air Quality.
i. Impact 4.2-2. Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-35 of the Draft EIR. Construction permitted pursuant to the Project during a typical year may exceed BAAQMD's ROG and NOx thresholds as well as fugitive dust emissions.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-39 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Equipment.  Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel.  Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction.  Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 will reduce NOx and other criteria pollutants from off-road equipment, whereas Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 will reduce fugitive ROG and dust emissions, respectively. Each of these mitigation measures have been required of the Project to reduce the potential air quality effects to the extent currently technically feasible. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4 would reduce the maximum daily emissions of ROG, PM10 and PM2.5 each to a less-thansignificant level, buildout of the General Plan and the BVSP would still exceed BAAQMD's NOx threshold. Therefore, air quality impacts related to construction permitted under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable.
150
12 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations ii. Impact 4.2-3. Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during operation.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-40 of the Draft EIR. Buildout of the Project has the potential to result in air quality impacts from mobile, area, and energy sources from long-term operations of the uses permitted pursuant to the Project.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-44 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Promote Green Consumer Products. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires developers to provide education regarding consumer products that generate lower than typical VOC emissions, however, the effect of this Mitigation Measure cannot be quantified because consumers cannot be required to use such products. In addition, the Project include numerous policies to promote a reduction in daily mobile, area, and energy source emissions generated by Project operations; however, even with all feasible reductions, the Project will still result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that exceeds BAAQMD's project-level thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts related to the operation of development permitted under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable.
iii. Impact 4.2-4. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-44 of the Draft EIR. ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with development under the General Plan and BVSP would exceed BAAQMD's project level thresholds. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-7 of the Draft EIR.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-46 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Tier 4 engines on Construction Equipment.  Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel.  Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction.  Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices. 151
13 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Promote Green Consumer Products. (3) Finding. The comprehensive suite of proposed General Plan and BVSP policies would ultimately reduce the severity of growth-oriented criteria pollutants, relative to conditions without the plans, for individual development projects; however, individual projects may still generate construction and operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD's project-level thresholds, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5. Therefore, air quality impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
iv. Impact 4.2-5. Implementation of the Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from new sources of toxic air containments.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.2-47 of the Draft EIR. Individual projects developed pursuant to the General Plan or the BVSP may prevent the reduction of health risks from TAC exposure below adopted thresholds. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-8 of the Draft EIR.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-50 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Require Future Projects Located within 1,000 Feet of Receptors Perform a Construction Health Risk Assessment.
(3) Finding. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce DPM exhaust from construction equipment and associated health risks. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 is also identified to provide a project-level evaluation of construction-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Although this would reduce operational health risks to current and future receptors, without specific details on the locations of building footprints or their construction schedules, a quantitative evaluation of potential health risk impacts is not possible, and it cannot conclusively be determined that health impacts from TAC exposure can be reduced below adopted thresholds. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
152
14 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Cultural Resources.
i. Impact 4.4-1. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial change to the significance of a historical resource, defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.4-19 of the Draft EIR. The City includes multiple historical resources. Of the resources identified, the Project anticipates the redevelopment of the historic Firehouse Square building, which may result in the impairment of the resource's historical significance. (2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.4-21 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Require façade maintenance of the Firehouse Building.  Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Require historical signage at Firehouse Square. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 requires any project applicant proposing physical changes to the Firehouse Building to maintain the existing structure's historic Spanish façade, while Mitigation Measure CULT-2 requires such a project to include detailed signage with historical information about the site, consistent with the recommendations of the historical evaluation prepared for the resource. In addition, the BVSP requires any development proposal at Firehouse Square to be reviewed and evaluated by a qualified architectural historian, and any site reuse must be done in accordance with the Municipal Code's standards for buildings on the Historical Resources Inventory. By maintaining the physical characteristics of the historical resource that convey the building's historical significance and documenting the factors that give the resource cultural significance, Mitigation Measures CULT1 and CULT-2 reduce the impact to a less than significant level. c. Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.
i. Impact 4.6-3. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, during construction that may have a significant impact on the environment.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.6-27 of the Draft EIR. Development in Belmont permitted under the Project has the potential to produce GHG emissions that conflict with statewide emission goals. (2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.6-29 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel. 153
15 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Finding. Development projects within Belmont under the Project would be required to use renewable diesel for all off-road diesel-powered equipment, pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-2. Implementation of this measure would reduce lifecycle GHG emissions (i.e., those produced by the extraction, refining, processing, and combustion of diesel) by 67 percent, relative to traditional diesel. This requirement is consistent with BAAQMD's recommended Best Management Practices for GHG emissions related to construction and would reduce emissions consistent with statewide goals. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 reduces the impact to a less than significant level.
d. Noise.
i. Impact 4.10-1. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies during construction.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.10-22 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permit higher-intensity development and redevelopment in Belmont, which would require construction activities using heavy-duty machinery and equipment. Temporary increases in noise levels have the potential to exceed the noise standards defined in both the existing and the proposed General Plan. In addition, traffic increases associated with Project implementation have the potential to increase noise levels above the normally acceptable range for some uses. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-19 of the Draft EIR. (2) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, construction-related noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. As discussed below, all feasible mitigation measures that would reduce traffic have been incorporated into the Project. (3) Finding. The Project includes comprehensive policies to limit the exposure of sensitive land uses to noise generating uses, and individual projects developed in accordance with the General Plan and the BVSP would be required to incorporate noise-reducing components. However, because of the uncertainty involved in evaluating the impact on all potential future users of new development, it is assumed that the Project's impact regarding noisegenerating uses would remain significant and unavoidable and that the Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. ii. Impact 4.10-2. Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.
154
16 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.10-39 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permit higher-intensity development and redevelopment in Belmont, which would require construction activities using heavy-duty machinery and equipment. As a result, groundborne vibration levels could temporarily exceed the threshold of significance for future and existing sensitive land uses. The Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact is further described beginning at page 6-19 of the Draft EIR.
(2) Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, vibration impacts on existing sensitive receptors from construction activities.
(3) Finding. The Project includes comprehensive policies to limit the exposure of sensitive land uses to groundborne vibration caused by construction activities, and individual projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to incorporate vibration-reducing components. However, because of the uncertainty involved in evaluating the impact on all potential future users of new development, it is assumed that the Project's impact regarding temporary impacts from construction activities causing groundborne vibrations would remain significant and unavoidable and that the Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. iii. Impact 4.10-4. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.10-43 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permit higher-intensity development and redevelopment in Belmont, which would require construction activities using heavy-duty machinery and equipment. As a result, ambient noise levels could temporarily increase by above the City's thresholds.
(2) Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures have been identified that would be able to reduce, with a reasonable degree of certainty, reductions in ambient noise caused by construction for all future development in the City. (3) Finding. The Project would impose time-of-day restrictions on construction activities along with noise reducing requirements for new construction, however, it is not possible to conclude that all future development will be able to reduce its temporary contribution to ambient noise levels to necessary levels, therefore it is assumed that the Project's impact regarding temporary impacts from construction activities increasing ambient noise levels would remain significant and unavoidable.
155
17 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations e. Transportation.
i. Impact 4.12-1. Buildout of the Proposed Project would cause intersections to fall below the established significance criteria for the City of Belmont and C/CAG for intersection operation.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-126 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, the delay at the intersection of El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue would exceed the threshold for significance for CMP intersections. Twenty-one intersections identified on page 4.12-145 of the Draft EIR would warrant turn lane additions, and 27 intersections identified on page 4.12-157 of the Draft EIR would exceed the City's threshold for turn lane queue lengths. In addition, the following twelve intersections would potentially have significant impacts during operations in 2035:
 Ralston Ave/SR-92 WB Ramps (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour;
 Ralston Ave/ Alameda de las Pulgas (Signalized), expected to operate at LOSE during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
 Ralston Avenue/Chula Vista Drive (TWSC), northbound approach expected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour;  Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame University Road (Roundabout), expected to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour;
 Ralston Avenue/Sixth Avenue (Signalized, expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour;
 Ralston Avenue/El Camino Real (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
 Ralston Avenue/Old County Road (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and at LOSE during the p.m. peak hour;
 Alameda de las Pulgas/Chula Vista Drive (Roundabout), expected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour;  El Camino Real/Flashner Lane (TWSC), northbound approach expected to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour;
 El Camino Real/O'Neill Avenue (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour;
 El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard (North) (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour;
156
18 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  El Camino Real/Waltermire Street would cause the Peak Hour traffic signal warrant to be met;
 Old County Road/O'Neill Avenue (TWSC), westbound approach expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour; and  Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard (Signalized), expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.12-132 are hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure 4.12-1c, 4.12-1n, 4.12-1o
(3) Finding. Mitigation is not feasible at the intersections of Ralston Ave/SR-92 WB Ramps, Ralston Ave/ Alameda de las Pulgas, Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame University Road, Ralston Avenue/Sixth Avenue, Ralston Avenue/El Camino Real, Ralston Avenue/Old County Road, Alameda de las Pulgas/Chula Vista Drive, El Camino Real/O'Neill Avenue, El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard, or Old County Road/Harbor Boulevard due to rightof-way constraints and would conflict with policies within the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Improvement Plan, the City's Complete Streets initiatives, the General Plan vision and policy directives for safe and efficient active transportation. In addition, mitigation is not feasible at the intersection of El Camino Real/Flashner Lane because the installation of a traffic signal would require removal of a medial island along El Camino Real and approval from Caltrans. Mitigation is not feasible at Old County Road/O'Neill Avenue because the additional of new turn lanes would increase the pedestrian crossing distance adjacent to the planned Caltrain undercrossing at O'Neill Avenue. In addition, the installation of turn lanes or additional through lanes is not feasible because it would require the acquisition of substantial new rights-of-way and widen streets in conflict with other Project policies.

The installation of a traffic signal and conversion of the existing left-most lane west of the intersection to a pedestrian island would cause the intersection of Ralston Avenue/Chula Vista Drive to operate at acceptable levels. The installation of a traffic signal would cause the intersection of El Camino Real/Waltermire Street to operate at acceptable levels. The incorporation of all feasible mitigation would reduce impacts at some intersections to a less than significant level, however, it is not possible to mitigate impacts at all the identified intersections.

Therefore, the Project's impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ii. Impact 4.12-2. Buildout of the proposed Project would cause roadway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established level of service standards.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-164 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, traffic volumes along El Camino Real's roadway segments north and south of Ralston Avenue exceed the threshold for significance for CMP arterial roadway segments.
157
19 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (2) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would require the addition of additional travel lanes along the El Camino Real corridor. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 is not feasible because it would require the acquisition of substantial new rights-of-way and widen streets in conflict with policies within the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Improvement Plan, the City's Complete Streets initiatives, the General Plan vision and policy directives for safe and efficient active transportation.

Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. iii. Impact 4.12-3. The proposed Project would cause freeway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established levels.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-167 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, traffic volumes on freeway segments in the Project area would exceed C/CAG's threshold for significance for freeway operations. (2) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 would require the addition of additional travel lanes on freeways in the Project area. (3) Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 is not feasible because it would require the acquisition of substantial new rights-of-way and widen freeways in conflict with policies within the Ralston Avenue Corridor Study and Improvement Plan, the City's Complete Streets initiatives, the General Plan vision and policy directives for safe and efficient active transportation. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. iv. Impact 4.12-9. Adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.12-175 of the Draft EIR. With projected traffic volumes associated with development permitted under the Project, increased congestion on roadways in the Project area could affect emergency vehicle response times, particularly during AM and PM peak hours. (2) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.12-175 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure 12-9: Signal Priority and Passing Priority. 158
20 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Finding.

Under Mitigation Measure 12-9 and state law, the use of the emergency vehicles' sirens to give such vehicles passing priority and the use of the emergency vehicles' signal priority preemption equipment to turn traffic signals red to stop traffic to allow the emergency vehicles to pass through the intersection would reduce the severity of this impact; however, the precise effect of Mitigation Measure 12-9 cannot be accurately quantified due to the unknown frequency of emergency calls and the varying nature of drivers' compliance with siren priority laws. Therefore, the impact is assumed to remain significant and unavoidable.
f. Utilities.
i. Impact 4.13-2. Development under the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.13-32 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the Project would result in future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the City, resulting in additional population that would generate additional demand for water and wastewater services, and therefore, an increased demand for water provision and wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment services over currently established levels.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.13-35 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Require water line upsizing  Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Require sewer line upsizing  Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump Station (3) Finding. As development intensification occurs throughout the BVSP area, upgrades from 6-inch to 8-inch water lines will be required along Old County Road between Masonic Way and Harbor Boulevard, along Ralston Avenue between Old County Road and Elmer Street, along Sixth Avenue between Hill Street and O'Neill Avenue, and along O'Neill Avenue between Sixth Avenue and El Camino Real. In addition, approximately 1,675 feet of sewer lines downstream of the BVSP area and the Shoreway Pump Station will be required to be upsized to accommodate projected growth in the BVSP permitted under the Project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-1, UTIL-2, and UTIL-3, the Project's impact would be less than significant.
159
21 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations ii. Impact 4.13-5. Development under the Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve Belmont that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Proposed Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. This impact is further described beginning at page 4.13-41 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the Project would result in future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the City, resulting in additional population that would generate additional demand for wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment services over currently established levels.
(2) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.13-43 is hereby adopted and shall be implemented as provided in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program:
 Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Require sewer line upsizing  Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump Station (3) Finding. Approximately 1,675 feet of sewer lines downstream of the BVSP area and the Shoreway Pump Station will be required to be upsized to accommodate projected growth in the BVSP permitted under the Project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, the Project's impact would be less than significant.

VI. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
The following significant adverse effects of the Project with respect to Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation are found to be unavoidable despite the adoption by the City Council of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR:
 Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction.  Implementation of the Proposed Project would violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during operation.  Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
 Implementation of the Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from new sources of toxic air containments.  Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies during construction.
160
22 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.
 Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
 Buildout of the Proposed Project would cause intersections to fall below the established significance criteria for the City of Belmont and C/CAG for intersection operation.  Buildout of the proposed Project would cause roadway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established level of service standards.
 The proposed Project would cause freeway segment operations to fall below C/CAG's established levels.
 Adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

VII. Project Alternatives
Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a "reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project." Based on the analysis in the EIR, the Project would be expected to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation. The EIR alternatives were designed to avoid or reduce these significant unavoidable impacts, and to further reduce impacts that were found to be less than significant.

Two alternatives were analyzed in the EIR, each of which are summarized below and described in more detail in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the EIR analyzed Alternative 1:

Jobs/Housing Balance and Alternative 2: the No Project Alternative.

The City Council has reviewed the significant impacts associated with the reasonable range of alternatives as compared to the Project, and in evaluating the alternatives has also considered each alternative's feasibility, taking into account a range of economic, environmental, social, legal, and other factors. In evaluating the alternatives, the City Council has also considered the important factors listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations listed in Section VIII of these Findings, below.
a. Alternative 1: Jobs/Housing Balance.

This alternative was designed to provide a more balanced jobs/housing ratio, representing a more even balance between commercial and residential development, in Belmont both in total and by neighborhood (where possible), which in turn has the potential to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by allowing more residents to have the opportunity to live closer to retail and commercial destinations. A better match between commercial and residential land uses is achieved relative to the Proposed Project in part through two additional mixed-use nodes (outside of the BVSP Area) along Ralston Avenue, and more housing within close proximity to Notre Dame de Namur 161
23 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations University (NDNU). Within the BVSP Area, more intense mixed use housing opportunities are created throughout the district, and a "live/work" land use designation is also introduced and applied to a cluster of parcels east of the Caltrain tracks and south of Ralston Avenue. These changes in total result in potential for a more even balance of residential to commercial development in the BVSP Area than the Proposed Project. i. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible this alternative, and the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative is less desirable than the Project and is rejected for the following reasons:
 The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would fail to meet some of the City's key Project objectives listed in Section II of these Findings.
 The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would not preserve the character and enhance the quality of Belmont's residential neighborhoods to the same extent as the Project, because it would allow new development styles in more locations than under the proposed Project.  By promoting less centralized growth than under the Project, the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative may interfere with efforts to enhance the Belmont Village because projects in Belmont Village would have to compete with projects in other areas of the City.  Although this alternative would result in a General Plan Update that achieves compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations, it would not result in a General Plan that reflects the goals and aspirations of the community through the year 2035 to the same extent as the Project.
 The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would result in similar impacts to those in the Proposed Project for aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology, flooding, and water quality; and public services and recreation.
 However, the higher population supported by the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project would produce greater impacts in relation to population-related externalities such as police and fire services, schools, and demand for water supply and wastewater services.
 The longer construction duration of the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative required to accommodate the additional development it permits would produce greater impacts related to noise as compared to the Project.
 The Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative would not reduce any of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. All impacts that are significant and unavoidable under the Project would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative.
162
24 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Alternative 2: the No Project Alternative.

The No Project scenario represents the continuation of the current General Plan (last updated in 1982) and Downtown Specific Plan (adopted in 1990 and amended in 1995) land use designations, with no Climate Action Plan in effect. It assumes that the existing General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Downtown Specific Plan would continue to guide development in the Planning Area until buildout in 2035. In relationship to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative: has different land uses; densities/intensities are lower, and mixed-use development and development of centers and walkable communities is not promoted to the level in the Proposed Project; is based on a different set of core values/goals and objectives; has lower residential capacity; and has reduced alternate modes of transportation, connectivity, and street capacity. i. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible this alternative, and the No Project Alternative is less desirable than the Project and is rejected for the following reasons:
 The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most of the City's key Project objectives listed in Section II of these Findings.
 The No Project Alternative would not enhance the Belmont Village or develop a distinct identify for the area as Belmont's vibrant town center for residents and visitors with commercial, residential, dining, civic, cultural, and entertainment activities.  The No Project Alternative would not promote opportunities for continued economic growth and vitality in Belmont or result in wider shopping and dining opportunities for residents.
 The No Project Alternative would not provide areas for diverse employment and business opportunities to promote diversity in Belmont's economic base.  The No Project Alternative would not include the transportation and infrastructure improvements that would occur under the proposed Project and it would not ensure adequate provision of community-serving facilities such as recreation facilities, child daycare facilities, places of worship, schools and other educational institutions, and schools to serve current and future residents.
 The No Project Alternative would not pursue annexation of the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) and bring it into the Belmont city limits.
 The No Project Alternative would not yield an updated General Plan that reflects the community's goals or that complies with current state laws and regulations.  The No Project Alternative would not yield a specific plan for the Belmont Village to promote and facilitate development of a vibrant downtown that serves as the City's shopping, employment, activity, and community center.
163
25 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations  The No Project Alternative would not yield a Climate Action Plan to increase municipal, residential, and commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy, efficient water use, and green building or reduce emissions from transportation through efficient land use, alternate modes of transportation, and operational innovations.
c. Environmentally Superior Alternative. As discussed above and in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2: the No Project Alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative to the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen, to the greatest extent, the environmental impacts associated with the Project.

The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project and the Jobs/Housing Balance Alternative because it permits less development overall. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would reduce the Project's significant and avoidable impacts regarding air quality and noise. Despite these benefits, the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts than the Project with respect to aesthetics; energy, GHGs, and climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; and land use, housing, and population. Most notable is the topical area of land use, housing, and population, which has a less than significant impact in the Proposed Project, but would have a significant impact under the No Project Alternative due to its conflicts with Plan Bay Area 2040. However, reduced development intensity under the No Project Alternative would fail to achieve most of the City's key Project objectives, as discussed in more detail above.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), when the "no project" alternative is environmentally superior, another alternative must also be considered. Alternative 1 would support more housing and fewer jobs than the Project, which would contribute to additional VMT reductions at the TAZ level in areas of high density mixed use, which are proposed in greater numbers under Alternative 1 than under the Project. Accordingly, Alternative 1 decreases VMT per service population relative to both the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative by reducing trip lengths and the number of daily trips per service population, and would result in increased pedestrian/bicycle activity and transit ridership. However, increased development intensity in more dispersed locations under Alternative 1 would fail to achieve some of the City's key Project objectives, as discussed in more detail above. i. Finding. After consideration of this reasonable range of identified alternatives to the Project, the City Council finds that none can achieve the goals and objectives set forth in the Project, and that because of each alternative's inability to achieve one or more of such goals and objectives, each identified alternative is rejected as being infeasible, as described above. The alternatives to the Project fundamentally fail to achieve the comprehensive goals and objectives for the Project and related City plans and policies, and as such are deemed infeasible.

VIII. Statement of Overriding Considerations
In approving the Project, the City Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of its findings on the EIR. The City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR and all other public comments, responses to comments, and accompanying technical memoranda and staff reports included in the public record. 164
26 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts identified in the EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level.

Notwithstanding the identification and analysis of impacts that are identified in the EIR as being significant and which have not been eliminated, lessened or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15093, hereby determines that remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable in Section VI above, are acceptable due to overriding concerns described below. Specifically, the benefits of the Project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved.

Based on the objectives identified in the proposed Project, and through extensive public participation, the City Council has determined that the Project should be approved, and any remaining unmitigated environmental impacts attributable to the Project are outweighed by the following specific environmental, economic, fiscal, social, housing and other overriding considerations, each one being a separate and independent basis upon which to approve the Project.

Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates the City would derive the following benefits from adoption and implementation of the Project:

The Project is the product of an extensive outreach effort conduct by the City throughout the planning process. The engagement process for the Project was developed to involve as diverse a group of residents and stakeholders as possible, and stakeholders from throughout the community worked together to make recommendations on how to best balance the City's needs, and the Project reflects this community effort.

The Project includes a General Plan and Phase I Zoning scheme that focuses new development in downtown Belmont, leaving the majority of the City unchanged. This plan for the City's future growth will help preserve Belmont's small-town ambiance in the City's built-out and established residential neighborhoods and prevent significant new development from occurring in the hills or other preservation areas within the City.

The Project includes policies and programs to promote mobility for bicyclists, walkers, and other non-drivers that will improve safety. In addition, the street designs promoted in the BVSP will help create a lively and attractive public realm in Belmont Village.

The Project permits development that will contribute to fiscal security for Belmont, which will permit the community to maintain its investment in school, library, arts, and other programs that facilitate lifelong learning.

Both the General Plan and the BVSP promote the development of Belmont's town center as the heart of the community's civic and economic life, with land use designations to promote a mix of business and residential opportunities that fit with the community's character.

Critically, the BVSP identifies public capital improvements and public services that will encourage private reinvestment in the area to support and promote infill development that serves Belmont's residential and employment populations.
165
27 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations The Project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. No feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified to mitigate the remaining significant and unavoidable adverse effects of the Project.

Based on the detailed findings made above, the City Council hereby finds that economic and social considerations outweigh the remaining environmental effects of approval and implementation of the Project, and the City Council hereby concludes that the Project should be approved.

IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP sets forth specific monitoring actions, timing requirements and monitoring/verification entities for each mitigation measure adopted in these Findings, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP and determines that compliance with the MMRP is a condition of approval of the Project.

X. Modifications to Project and EIR
a. Modifications within the Final EIR
In the course of responding to comments received during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, some modifications have been made and some new information amplifying and clarifying information has been added to the Final EIR. The City has analyzed the modifications in the Final EIR and has assessed whether those modifications trigger the thresholds for recirculation as identified in Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Project as reviewed in the Final EIR will not result in any significant environmental impacts not identified in the Draft EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental impact identified in the Draft EIR, nor will any modifications to the mitigation measures result in new significant impacts. No additional feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others analyzed in the Draft EIR has been identified that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council hereby determines, based on the standards provided in Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, that recirculation of the EIR is not required prior to approval of the Project.
b. Modifications to the Project Subsequent to Certification of the EIR In addition to the changes noted in the Final EIR, the City has incorporated a number of changes into the Project since it certified the EIR on October 24, 2017. The majority of these changes are minor corrections, clarifying edits, or additional background information that amplifies analysis already incorporated into the EIR. None of these minor changes to the Project have the potential to affect the Project’s environmental impacts; accordingly, subsequent environmental review is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as a result of these minor modifications.

A limited number of Project modifications require minor revisions to the EIR, and the following modifications are made by this reference:
166
28 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations i. Draft EIR page 3-16:

Belmont Village Mixed Use (Floor Area Ratio, or Base FAR, 2.0; Maximum FAR 2.5 with additional community benefits45 du/ac). The Belmont Village Mixed Use land use designation applies to all parcels in the Belmont Village Priority Development Area (PDA) and is intended to promote a pedestrianoriented, mixed-use core in Downtown Belmont. The details for the Belmont Village PDA, including the precise mix of uses, are provided in the Belmont Village PDA Specific Plan. The Belmont Village Mixed Use designation allows for residential uses, as well as retail, service, office, and entertainment uses, where appropriate, in a vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use setting. Small- and mediumsized retail uses are encouraged in the Village, focusing on meeting neighborhood and community needs; as well as unique specialty shops that attract locals and visitors alike. The maximum base FAR in the Belmont Village Mixed Use designation is 2.0 and the maximum residential density is 45 du/ac. If a public benefits zoning ordinance is adopted that requires greater proportional public benefits than would be required for projects up to a FAR of 2.0 45 du/ac, then projects may build to a maximum FAR of 2.5 and a maximum residential density of 60 du/ac.
ii. Draft EIR Page 4.12-172
Policy 3.2-2. Look for ways to partner with ride-sharing services as a means to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, reduce the need for car ownership and cover service gaps in the public transportation system.
****
Policy 3.7-1. Ensure that adequate transit service facilities are provided in Belmont, including bus turn-outs along arterials roadway geometry or traffic operations improvements when needed, and bus stop amenities including, but not limited to, lighted shelters, benches, and route information signs. iii. Draft EIR Page 4.12-173
Policy 3.7-6. Support improvement and frequency of north-south mass transit service, while minimizing community impacts, by advocating for increased service at the Belmont Caltrain station as systemwide improvements are made, and working with Samtrans to implement service improvements (such as transit signal priority and rapid bus service) on El Camino Real.

Policy 3.7-8. Support the California High Speed Rail Authority in the goal to bring high speed rail to the San Francisco Peninsula, while minimizing the community impacts of any potential railway infrastructure improvements. 167
29 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Findings
The City Council finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that that none of the events described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred:
 As analyzed above, the Project modifications do not consist of substantial changes and do not require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This is supported by the fact that the Project modifications consist only of minor changes or amendments; because the Project does not include material changes, there are no changes that would require substantial revisions to the EIR.  No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This is supported by the fact that the EIR was certified on October 24, 2017, only three weeks before the Project is being considered, and the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Project are substantially similar to when the EIR was certified.
 No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, shows that:
o The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR, or o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR, or
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the EIR, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative, or
o Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This is supported by the fact that no new information, let alone new information of substantial importance, has been added to the record regarding the Project or the EIR.
168
30 Exhibit A – CEQA Findings & Statement of Overriding Considerations Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the EIR, and that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required for the Project.

XI. Filing Notice of Determination
The City Council hereby directs the Planning Division to file a Notice of Determination regarding the approval of the Project within five (5) business days of adoption of this resolution.

XII. Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

XIII. Incorporation by Reference
These findings incorporate the text of the EIR for the project, including the MMRP, City staff reports relating to the project and other documents relating to public hearings on the project, by reference, in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the project, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the project. 169

EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2016082075
Belmont 2035 General Plan
Phase I Zoning
Belmont Village Specific Plan
Belmont Village Zoning
Climate Action Plan
November 2017
170
This page intentionally left blank.
171
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 1 1 Purpose
Section 21081.6 to the State of California Public Resources Code requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” The City of Belmont (the "City") is the lead agency for the EIR for the Belmont General Plan, Phase I Zoning Regulations, and Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan (collectively referred to as the Proposed Project), SCH No. 2016082075, and therefore is responsible for implementation of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. An EIR has been prepared for the Proposed Project that addresses potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 21081.6. It is the intent of this program to:

1. Verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the EIR;

2. Provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation;

3. Provide a record of the monitoring program;

4. Identify monitoring responsibility;

5. Establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures;

6. Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and

7. Utilize existing review processes wherever feasible.

The MMRP describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the Proposed Project and the methods of monitoring such actions. A monitoring program is necessary only for impacts which would be significant if not mitigated.

If, during the course of project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall immediately inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the project is required, and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate.

The following consists of a monitoring program table noting the responsible entity for mitigation monitoring, the timing, and a list of all project-related mitigation measures. 172
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 2 This page intentionally left blank.
173
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 3 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
Air Quality
AQ-1 Require Tier 4 engines on Construction
Equipment. All applicants proposing
development of projects within Belmont
shall require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to further reduce
construction-related exhaust emissions by
ensuring that all off-road equipment greater
than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the entire
duration of construction activities shall
operate on an EPA-approved Tier 4 or
newer engine. Exemptions can be made for
specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines
are not commercially available within 200
miles of the project site. The construction
contract must identify these pieces of
equipment, document their unavailability,
and ensure that they operate on no less than
an EPA- approved Tier 3 engine. ARB
regulations will result in the percentage of
Tier 4 engines increasing over the next
several years.

Project applicant
shall submit data
from contractor
Prior to issuance of
grading and
construction
permits
Construction
contractor and City
of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
174
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 4 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
AQ-2 Require Construction Fleet to Use
Renewable Diesel. All applicants
proposing development of projects within
Belmont shall require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related exhaust emissions by
ensuring that all off-road equipment greater
than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the entire
duration of construction activities shall
operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel
high performance renewable). Renewable
diesel is currently commercially available
in San Francisco Bay Area.

Project applicant
shall submit data
from contractor
Prior to issuance of
grading and
construction
permits
Construction
contractor and City
of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
AQ-3 Require Low-VOC Coatings during
Construction. All applicants proposing
development of projects within Belmont
shall require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related fugitive ROG
emissions by ensuring that low-VOC
coatings that have a VOC content of 10
grams/liter (g/L) or less are used during
construction. The project applicant will
submit evidence of the use of low-VOC
coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of
construction.

Project applicant
shall submit data to
City of Belmont
and BAAQMD
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
AQ-4 Require Fugitive Dust Best Management
Practices. All applicants proposing
development of projects within Belmont
shall require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related fugitive dust by
implementing BAAQMD’s basic control
Project applicant
shall submit data
from contractor
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Construction
contractor and City
of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
175
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 5 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
measures at all construction and staging
areas. The following measures are based on
BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,
staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
un- paved access roads) will be watered
two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or
other loose material offsite will be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto
adjacent public roads will be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at
least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads,
driveways, or driving surfaces shall be
limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks
to be paved will be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads will be laid as soon
as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and the name of the
person to contact at the lead agency
regarding dust complaints. This person will
respond and take corrective action within
48 hours. The phone number of the District
will also be visible to ensure compliance.

AQ-5 Promote Green Consumer Products. For
all projects developed within the Planning
Area, developer(s) shall provide education
for residential and commercial tenants
Project applicant
shall submit
planned electronic
correspondence
Prior to receipt of
certificate of final
occupancy
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
176
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 6 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
concerning green consumer products. Prior
to receipt of any certificate of final
occupancy, the project sponsors shall work
with the City of Belmont to develop
electronic correspondence to be distributed
by email to new residential and commercial
tenants that encourages the purchase of
consumer products that generate lower than
typical VOC emissions. Examples of green
products may include low-VOC
architectural coatings, cleaning supplies,
and consumer products, as well as
alternatively fueled landscaping equipment.

AQ-6 Require Future Projects Located within
1,000 Feet of Receptors Perform a
Construction Health Risk Assessment.

All applicants proposing development of
projects within 1,000 feet of existing
sensitive receptors, as defined by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), shall prepare a site-specific
construction 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
BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then
additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would
exceed BAAQMD project- level
thresholds, additional feasible on- and
offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the
applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest
extent practicable.

Project applicant
shall prepare sitespecific
construction health
risk assessment
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
177
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 7 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
Cultural Resources
CULT-1 Require façade maintenance of the
Firehouse Building. Any approved project
development that involves physical
changes to the Firehouse Building will be
required to maintain the recognizable
portion of the existing structure’s Spanish
façade and integrate it into the new
structure with complementary architecture.

Project applicant
shall submit
architectural plans
and renderings
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
CULT-2 Require historical signage at Firehouse
Square. Any approved project
development that involves physical
changes to the Firehouse Building will be
required to include detailed signage with
historical information for residents,
employees, and passers-by about the old
Firehouse.

Project applicant
shall submit
architectural plans
and renderings
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department
Transportation

4.12-1c Ralston Avenue/Chula Vista Drive.
• Install a traffic signal
• Convert the existing westbound
merge (left-most) lane west of the
intersection to a pedestrian refuge island, as
described in the Ralston Avenue Corridor
Study and Improvement Plan.

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
includes this
intersection
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department
178
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 8 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record

4.12-1d Ralston Avenue/Notre Dame University
Road.
• Install a traffic signal instead of a
roundabout
• Convert the existing eastbound
merge (left-most) lane west of the
intersection to a pedestrian refuge island, as
described in the Ralston Avenue Corridor
Study and Improvement Plan
Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
includes this
intersection
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department

4.12-1f Ralston Avenue/El Camino Real.
• Modify the traffic signal to
include a westbound right-turn overlap
phase.

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
includes this
intersection
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department

4.12-1j El Camino Real/O’Neill Avenue.
• Modify the traffic signal to
include a northbound right-turn overlap
phase.

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department.
179
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 9 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
includes this
intersection

4.12-1k El Camino Real/Harbor Boulevard
(North).
• Modify the traffic signal to
include a westbound right-turn overlap
phase.

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
includes this
intersection
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department.

4.12-1n Same as 4.12-1c

4.12-1o Old County Road and Harbor
Boulevard.
• Install a traffic signal.

Project applicants
shall contribute
proportionate share
payments towards
this improvement,
or pay the required
traffic impact fee
should an impact
fee program be
established that
includes this
intersection
Prior to
discretionary
project approval
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department.

Utilities
UTIL-1 Require water line upsizing. As
development intensification occurs
throughout the BVSP Area, upgrades from
6-inch to 8-inch water lines will be required
as necessary. The existing water lines in the
Project applicants
shall secure
verification that
water service can
be provided. As
Water system
capacity shall be
verified prior to
issuance of
grading permits for
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department and
Community
Development
180
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 10 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
BVSP Area are displayed in Figure 4.13-2,
and planned improvements are displayed in
Figure 4.13-3. Lines that are anticipated to
need upgrades include the 6-inch lines
along Old County Road between Masonic
Way and Harbor Boulevard, along Ralston
Avenue between Old County Road and
Elmer Street, along Sixth Avenue between
Hill Street and O’Neill Avenue, and along
O’Neill Avenue between Sixth Avenue and
El Camino Real. The physical
improvements will be subject to projectlevel environmental review as needed. projects are built in
accordance with
the Specific Plan,
City of Belmont
Public Works in
conjunction with
Mid-Peninsula
Water District
shall monitor
system capacity
and construct
necessary upgrades
over time.
individual projects.

Ongoing study and
monitoring of the
BVSP Area water
infrastructure shall
be performed by
the Public Works
Department and
Mid-Peninsula
Water District.

Department; MidPeninsula Water
District
UTIL-2 Require sewer line upsizing. As
development intensification occurs
throughout the BVSP Area, approximately
1,675 feet of sewer lines downstream of the
BVSP Area will be required to be upsized
as a direct result of growth in the BVSP
Area. The existing sewer lines in the BVSP
Area are displayed in Figure 4.13-5, and
planned improvements are displayed in
Figure 4.13-6. Lines that are anticipated to
need upgrades lie along Masonic Way and
Hiller Street.

Project applicants
shall secure
verification that
sewer service can
be provided. As
projects are built in
accordance with
the Specific Plan,
City of Belmont
Public Works in
conjunction with
Silicon Valley
Clean Water shall
monitor system
capacity and
construct necessary
upgrades over time
consistent with the
City’s Sanitary
Sewer System
Capacity Analysis
Sewer system
capacity shall be
verified prior to
issuance of
grading permits for
individual projects.

Ongoing study and
monitoring of the
BVSP Area sewer
infrastructure shall
be performed by
the Public Works
Department and
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department and
Community
Development
Department;
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
181
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 11 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
and the Silicon
Valley Clean
Water Conveyance
System Master
Plan.

UTIL-3 Require upsizing of Shoreway Pump
Station. As development intensification
occurs throughout the BVSP Area, the
Shoreway Pump Station will be required to
be upsized as a direct result of growth in
the BVSP Area.

Project applicants
shall secure
verification that
sewer service can
be provided. As
projects are built in
accordance with
the Specific Plan,
City of Belmont
Public Works in
conjunction with
Silicon Valley
Clean Water shall
monitor system
capacity and
construct necessary
upgrades to the
Shoreway Pump
Station over time
consistent with the
City’s Sanitary
Sewer System
Capacity Analysis
and the Silicon
Valley Clean
Water Conveyance
System Master
Plan.

Sewer system
capacity shall be
verified prior to
issuance of
grading permits for
individual projects.

Ongoing study and
monitoring of the
BVSP Area sewer
infrastructure shall
be performed by
the Public Works
Department and
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
City of Belmont
Public Works
Department and
Community
Development
Department;
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
Policies Incorporated into the Project that Reduce Environmental Impacts 182
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2035 Belmont General Plan, Phase I/ Interim Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, Belmont Village Zoning, and Climate Action Plan 12 Number Mitigation Measure Responsibility for
Implementation
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Verification Record
The EIR lists numerous policies contained in the General Plan, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan that reduce the environmental impacts of the project, in some cases to a level of insignificance. As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b), the monitoring plan
for these policies consists of City implementation and
enforcement of those policies.

City of Belmont 1. Annually
through the annual
report on general
plan status.

2. As part of the
review of each
development
project and
proposed public
work.

City of Belmont
Community
Development
Department

1. Annual report on
general plan status.

2. As part of findings
of approval for
individual projects.
183